!! Ballina Chronicle; Jan 2, 1850 "Poor Rates Queries"
- BALLINA CHRONICLE
Ballina, Mayo, Ireland
Wednesday, January 2, 1850
POOR RATES - OPINION OF COUNSEL.
1st quere - Is a landlord liable to be successfully sued by a civil bill or
otherwise for a rate struck during the time his tenant was in occupation of his
land, but which lands the tenant thereafter asserted his right of entry and took
possession, by leaving a caretaker in charge of the lands; but did not otherwise
occupy them, or did he use them for any purpose or derive any profit from them,
his caretaker merely superintending the lands till they could be set?
2d quere - The above lands having remained unset under the above
circumstances, another rate is struck and the landlord is, for such new rate,
rated by name. Can payment of such last mentioned rate be legally enforced from
In reply to the first quere, I am of opinion that a landlord cannot, under
the circumstances stated, be successfully sued by civil bill or otherwise.
In reply to the 2d quere, I am also of opinion that payment of rate, under
the circumstances mentioned, cannot be enforced from a landlord because, amongst
other reasons, the whole poor law code, in this country, as well as in England,
requires that each occupier, to be rated, or to be liable to pay rates, must
beneficially occupy. See Ren v. Welbank, 4 Maule and Selwin, 229. Ren v.
Suelcoates, 12 East, p. 80, because the 61st, 71st, 79d and 78th sections of the
1st and 2nd Victoria, chap. 56, make a clear distinction between an owner,
lessor, or landlord, and an occupier or tenant, which distinction cannot be
demolished by the tortuous act of abandonment of his farm by the tenant, or by
the legitimate exercise of his right of ownership or title by the landlord, by a
lawful entry on the deserted premises; because the words in the 71st section,
"by the person subsequently in occupation," it is further clearly explained by
the latter part of the 78th section to mean, the beneficial occupation of a
subsequent actual tenant.
As to my opinion on the second quere, I am fully supported by authority of
the cases of the King v. Dwyer and Hall, p. 600 and the King v. Morgan and
Dayrrel, Justices of Buckinghamshire, 3 Ad. and El. p. 648.
PIERSE CREAGH, 52, Great Charles st.
Cathy Joynt Labath
Ireland Old News