Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

!! Ballina Chronicle; Jan 2, 1850 "Poor Rates Queries"

Expand Messages
  • Cathy Joynt Labath
    BALLINA CHRONICLE Ballina, Mayo, Ireland Wednesday, January 2, 1850 POOR RATES - OPINION OF COUNSEL. 1st quere - Is a landlord liable to be successfully sued
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 1, 2004
      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
      him?
      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
      http://www.IrelandOldNews.com/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.