HC Deb 18 April 1882 vol 268 cc869-70

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that the jurisdiction of the Land Court sitting at Waterford on the 17th April, includes "that part of the union of New Ross, in the counties of Wexford and Kilkenny," and if he can state why the sixty or seventy cases arising in the union of New Ross cannot be heard in that town, where there is a commodious court house and good hotel accommodation, and why the suitors should be put to the inconvenience of having their cases heard at Waterford, which is over twenty miles distant from the homes of a great number of them; whether he is aware that the authorities in Merrion Street have refused all information to the tenants as to the hearing of their cases until a fortnight before the sitting begins; whether up to the 1st instant no list of cases has been published; whether, considering that valuators and surveyors have to be employed, and solicitors instructed in the several cases, a fortnight is sufficient to enable tenants to bring their cases properly into court; and, whether he will communicate with the Land Commission, with a view to having the professional gentlemen engaged in the several cases consulted in the making of future arrangements as to fixtures, and also in order that the cases arising in the union of New Ross may be heard in that town, it being the most convenient place for all the parties concerned?


The Land Court, which sat at Waterford yesterday, is empowered by the Land Commission to hear cases in which applications may be made in towns in the unions other than the town appointed as the centre of the district. The cases referred to may, therefore, be heard at New Ross if application is made for that purpose to the Sub-Commission, and that Court grant the application. In reply to the second and third Questions, I am informed by the Secretary to the Land Commission that the authorities in Merrion Street have never refused information to parties applying for it, where it was possible to give it. In this instance the list of cases was published on the 4th of April. As to the fourth Question, there is no reason to think that a fortnight's notice of trial is not sufficient. It is a longer time than required for notice of trial in an action in the Supreme Court of Judicature; and professional gentlemen are usually employed, and proofs ready, even before notice of trial is served. As to the last Question, it would not be possible to meet the individual wishes of the several professional gentlemen engaged in these cases in the various counties in Ireland.