HC Deb 03 July 1882 vol 271 cc1241-2
MR. FITZ-PATRICK

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is acquainted with the Land case of Owen v. Day, heard by the Assistant Commissioners at Abbeyleise, on the 19th December 1881, and the appeal, which was heard by the Chief Commissioners on the 22nd March 1882; whether he is aware that, in this case, the Chief Commissioners departed from the usual rules, which, according to the statement of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the working of the Land Act, was always adhered to, of requiring an evicted tenant, who had applied for an extension of time during which to sell his interest in his tenancy, to lodge in court a considerable portion of the rent due by him to his landlord; whether it is a fact that, on appeal, the rent of the holding, which had been fixed by the Assistant Commissioners at £80, was raised to £100, whereupon the tenant, being dissatisfied, left the premises, leaving a sum of £240 due for rent, a considerable portion of which would have been secured to the landlady had the Chief Commissioners granted the usual order; and, whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to advise that compensation be granted to Mrs. Owen for the loss thus sustained by her?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Sir, I have inquired into the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member's Question refers, and have ascertained that the tenant was evicted for nonpayment of rent, and had the ordinary time to redeem—namely, six months from the eviction. During that time the Sub-Commission fixed the judicial yearly rent at £80. From this decision the landlady appealed, and as the time for redemption, with a view to a sale by the tenant of his interest, would have expired in ordinary course before the appeal could have been heard, an extension of time to sell was rendered necessary by the fact of the appeal. The result of the appeal was that the judicial rent fixed by the Sub-Commission was raised to the yearly judicial rent of £100. Nothing is known in the Land Commission of the subsequent proceedings of the tenant. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to advise any grant of compensation.