§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware that at the Local Government Board inquiry in Newcastle West into a scheme of cottages to be built in the union a consent was signed by Mrs. Fitzgerald and the agent to have a cottage placed on her holding instead of Mr. Vereker's, which consent Mr. Vereker also signed, and the Local Government Board inspector accordingly changed the site; that on appeal to the County Court judge Mr. Vereker explained that he thought it was the old site he was opposing, but when it was explained to him it was not, the County Court judge held that as the original 1250 notices were not served on Mrs. Fitzgerald the case could not stand, and he allowed the appeal with costs against the district council; and whether he intends to take any steps to have the cottage built on the site agreed on for the labourer?
§ Mr. BIRRELLMrs. Fitzgerald did consent in writing to the taking of a site on her farm in lieu of one proposed on the lands of Mr. Vereker, but this consent was not also signed by the agent and Mr. Vereker as stated in the question. The Local Government Board have no information as to the precise grounds on which the county court judge decided to reject the cottage, but, in any event, they have no jurisdiction in the matter.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the district council state that the agent had signed a consent, and how can he in these circumstances say that he did not sign?
§ Mr. BIRRELLIt would perhaps be better to say that in no event have I any jurisdiction in the matter.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at the January quarter sessions, in Newcastle West, county Limerick, County Court Judge Law Smith, in disallowing the petitions in two cases with costs against the council in each case, brought by the Newcastle West District Council to have cottages built for two labourers, refused to hear the evidence, as he said that one of the representatives of the division was illegally a district, councillor, as he was an occupant of a labourer's cottage, and that while he held a cottage illegally, being a district councillor, he would not grant a cottage in his division; and whether, as the decision given by the King's Bench in the Granard case holds that a district councillor in occupation of a cottage from the district council is legally such, he will say what steps he intends to take to enable the applicants for the two cottages in the division to have their cases heard so that they may acquire the cottages?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe facts generally areas stated in the question, but I have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYWhat redress have these two labourers, seeing that their cottages have been rejected by the unjust decision of the judge?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI cannot admit that the decision of the judge was unjust, though it 1251 was contrary to a decision that has been given in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland. It is one of those cases in which the attention of the judge was not called to a case that had just been decided. These things frequently occur, but one must not say that the judge's decision is unjust.