§ MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," being the first appeal heard by the Land Commissioners, the Court valuer's valuation was not made known to the litigants until after evidence of value had been given by both sides; whether for some time subsequent to the hearing of that 1884 case it was the practice to make known the amount of the Court valuer's valuation during the sitting of the Court; and, whether subsequently it became the practice to make known the amount of the Court valuer's valuation by sending a statement thereof to the litigants by post before the case came on for hearing, and, in some instances, before the cases were even listed for hearing; if so, whether he is still prepared to state that the Court valuer's valuation was from the commencement made known to the litigants before the case came on for hearing, and that there was no change in practice regarding these valuations until December 1884?
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)
(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners state that in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" it was decided that the report of the Court valuer should be communicated to the parties after the hearing of the evidence, and not before. A short time afterwards—the precise date is not recorded—the Commissioners determined to give the amount of the valuation to the parties when asked for, but no other portion of the document, and this was frequently done during the sitting in Court. It subsequently became the practice to communicate the valuation by post, or otherwise, to litigants. The reply to the previous Question on the subject was in substance correct. There was, however, a misunderstanding on the part of the Commissioners, when preparing the answer, as to the point raised, they being under the impression that it related to the former practice of having free valuations and the subsequent practice of having valuations paid for by the appellants, and as to the reasons of the next change to valuations at the discretion, of the Court, and to the effect of these changes.