HC Deb 24 November 1882 vol 275 cc1-3
Mr. BIGGAR (for Mr. HEALY)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of Shiels v. Johnston, in which the originating notice was served 27th October 1881, for Sessions holden 7th January, the County Court Judge of Cavan adjourned the case to the 20th February, when, after a partial hearing, it was again adjourned to the 17th March, owing to the absence of Shiels' solicitor; whether, when the re-hearing came on upon the 17th March, it transpired that the Land Commission had remitted the case to their Sub-Commissioners; whether this was done without any notice being given to plaintiff or his solicitor, until the 2nd February, although the case was partly heard by the County Court Judge on February 20th, and although it should have been heard on 7th January; whether, as Rule 62 provides that notice of transfer must be given ten days before the first day of sessions, this should have been served in December 1881, instead of February 1882; whether the County Court Judge considered the proceedings so irregular that he adjourned the case until June, and directed Shiels to apply to the Land Commission to rescind their transfer order; whether the Commissioners refused this application; whether he is aware the result was that Shiels was put to heavy costs by bringing his witnesses twice to Cavan, and by having to make the Dublin motion; whether the case was not tried until the 23rd ultimo; whether he is aware that the decision then given was that Shiels' rent was reduced from £50 to £35; that the Government valuation is but £16; that several witnesses proved the fair rent at £20 to £23; that the landlady, Mrs. Johnston, gave no evidence as to value, although she had two valuators in court; that the fair rent fixed is £2 over what her valuator swore before the County Court Judge on 20th February; that the court ordered new rent to date from 25th March 1883, instead of 25th March 1882, although the originating notice was served 27th October 1881; whether Mr. Vernon, the Head Commissioner, was formerly agent upon Burrowes' estate, upon which Shiels resides; whether he was a member of the court which remitted the case to the Sub-Commission, or which refused to rescind the order; and, whether the Government propose to make Shiels any compensation for the loss he sustained, or to take any legislative steps to prevent other suitors being similarly treated?


, in reply, said, he hoped the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would take the course that he felt sure, from previous transactions he had had with the hon. Member, he would take, and allow him to communicate a document which would answer these Questions, and then, perhaps, the hon. Member would put any Question that arose out of that document afterwards. In fact, it would consume an immense amount of the time of the House if he answered the Question in detail.