§ MR. W. ABRAHAM (Limerick, W.)
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that at the sitting of the Land Commission in Limerick in January last, on the appeal of Daniel O'Connell, junior, a tenant on the estate of the Trustees of Archdeacon Gould, the judicial rent of £10 fixed by the Sub-Commission was reduced to £8 10s. 0d., and notwithstanding that the tenant was successful in his appeal, and that he and his valuator had to travel a distance of 45 miles to Limerick, where they had to remain two nights, and to employ a lawyer there, the Land Commission refused to give the tenant any costs; whether he is aware that it is the usual practice to award to the successful party the costs and expenses of his appeal, and why this Rule has been departed from in favour of a landlord as against a tenant in Ireland; and, whether, considering that this practice is calculated to deter tenants from seeking justice by way of appeal, he will suggest to the Land Commission the adoption of the practice usually followed in other Courts?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)
The Land Commissioners inform me that their practice as to costs has been the same from the commencement, and is thoroughly well known to every practitioner in their Court. Where either the landlord or the tenant appeals, and the judicial rent is affirmed, the unsuccessful appellant pays the costs of the opposite party. Where the judicial rent is varied on appeal, whether it be raised or lowered, no costs are, as a rule, given to either party. Exceptional cases may, of course, occur, which are determined according to their circumstances; but there was nothing exceptional in the 741 case referred to. In a tribunal whose duties are such as those of the Land Commission it would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be unjust that a tenant whose rent is slightly raised on appeal should pay the appellant's costs, and likewise as regards the case of the landlord.
§ MR. W. ABRAHAM
asked, if the other tenants on the estate had declined to go into the Land Court in consequence of the treatment given to this tenant?