HC Deb 03 August 1885 vol 300 cc825-6

asked the Postmaster General, If it is true that, in November 1882, Mr. C. C. Templeman, agent to Mr. S. C. Armstrong, of 39, Brighton Square, Rathgar, Dublin, did make a joint application and a joint affidavit with John Cullen for the discharge of certain arrears of rent under the Arrears Act, due by Cullen out of a farm held by him in the townland of Toughery, county Leitrim; is it true that the Commissioners sent to Cullen a statement that an order had been made for the discharge of said arrears; is it true that when Mr. Templeman found he was not getting the full amount of arrears, he wrote to the Arrears Court stating that no arrears were due by, Cullen, and that he joined in the application and affidavit by mistake; what was the purport of that letter, and did the Court defer making the order; if the landlord took instant action against Cullen for the recovery of the rent, and did the landlord swear he joined in the application by mistake, and on same occasion, when receipts were produced differing from the rent book, swore the difference was caused by a mistake of his in filing the receipts; is it true that, after he obtained a decree, he threatened to put it into the sheriff's hands for execution till Cullen was induced to sign a bill on the Ulster Bank for the full amount; is it true that when the Arrears Court investigated the case, they found the arrears were due, and made an order for the payment of a certain sum in lieu of said arrears; is it true that money is still lying in the Court in the landlord's name, and that he or his agent will not draw it: and, if the above is true, will the Government allow the money to Cullen, and what action will the Government take with Templeman?


I know nothing of this Question, and must refer the hon. Member to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.


said, he thought he could answer the Question. A joint affidavit was made, and at first an order was made to discharge the arrears. Afterwards it was discovered that the joint application had been made under a misunderstanding, and this order was rescinded. He knew nothing of the other matters referred to in the Question. It seemed to him that there was I no reason for taking any action against Mr. Templeman.