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

!! Ballina Chronicle; Apr 10, 1850; Appeal Against Poor Rates

Expand Messages
  • Cathy Joynt Labath
    BALLINA CHRONICLE Ballina, Mayo, Ireland Wednesday, April 10, 1850 IMPORTANT DECISION IN CASES OF APPEAL AGAINST POOR RATES It will be seen by a report which
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 7, 2005
      Ballina, Mayo, Ireland
      Wednesday, April 10, 1850

      It will be seen by a report which we give elsewhere that in all cases
      of appeal against poor rates the appellant must be a party to the
      recognizances which the law requires to be entered into in such cases. It
      has been generally supposed that an agent, appointed in writing by a
      principal, had authority, under a recent statute, to sign the notices and
      recognizances in his own name; but, the question having been raised by Mr.
      McAndrew, on the part of the Guardians of the poor of this union, at the
      late Sessions at Swinford, upon an ejection made by him to the validity of a
      recognizance signed by the agent of Sir Roger Palmer, it would now seem that
      the authority of the agent merely confers upon him the right of signing the
      name of the appellant to the recognizances to which, it would appear, that
      the appellant himself must, of necessity, in law, be a party. We think the
      Assistant Barrister has taken a very fair and a very reasonable view of the
      question, for we consider that it could never have been contemplated that
      the Guardians should, in such cases, lose the security of a principal for
      recovery of costs to which they might possibly be unnecessarily subjected.
      Besides, it is not opposing any difficulty to the bringing of appeals, nor
      does it interfere with the due facility which it was intended should be
      given for this purpose, to hold that the name of the principal should in all
      cases be signed to the recognizances, as it is quite as easy for the agent
      to sign the name of the appellant as to sign his own name. We believe the
      question had not been raised before. The decision upon it is important, and,
      in our opinion, reasonable, and in accordance with the spirit and true
      interpretation of the law upon the subject.

      These sessions commenced on Wednesday last. There were about 800 civil
      bills entered for trial, of which there were a great many for recovery of
      poor rates payable to the Guardians of the Poor of the Ballina, Killala,
      Swinford and Castlebar Unions.
      There were about fifty appeals against the rate in the Killala Union,
      of which eighteen were brought by Sir Roger Palmer, in each of which the
      valuation was reduced at the rate of from 25 to 30 per cent.
      There were also 12 appeals against the rate made in this union on 11th
      Dec. 1849. One of these appeals was brought by John F. Knox, Esq., of
      Mountfalcon; one by Mr. Wm. Joynt, of Crossmolina; and ten by Sir R. Palmer.
      John F. Knox, Appellant; the Guardians of the poor of the Ballina
      Union, Respondents.
      In this case the appellant complained principally of being overvalued.
      The Valuator, Mr. Cunningham, admitted that in some cases he had been valued
      too highly, and the valuation was reduced in conformity with his evidence.
      Wm. Joynt, Appellant; Same, Respondents.
      In this case the appellant complained of being overvalued as occupier.
      On reference to the rate book it appeared that the rate of which he
      complained had been charged against him as Immediate Lessor. The appeal was
      accordingly dismissed.
      Sir Roger Palmer, Appellant; Same, Respondents.
      Mr. Thomas MacAndrew, on behalf of the Respondents, said- I object to
      the right of the appellant to be heard in this case. I rely for the support
      of my objection upon the insufficiency of the recognizance, which I content
      should have been entered into by the appellant either in person or by his
      agent. The recognizance in the present case has been signed by the agent in
      his own name, which I submit is bad. I refer to the 22d and 23d sections of
      the act 12th and 13th Vic, cap. 164. I submit also that in respect of
      property for which the appellant has been rated as occupier, he has no
      authority to appoint an agent for the purpose of an appeal, but should
      himself act in person.
      Mr. O'Donel, on behalf of the appellant, argued in support of the
      recognizance, and contended that the known agent of a party, duly appointed,
      was authorized in law to sign the notices and enter into the necessary
      recognizances in his own name, and that the introduction of the name of the
      appellant, in such cases into the recognizances, so as to bind him therelly,
      was not required by law.
      Court - I think the objection raised to this recognizance is a good
      one. The party appealing is required to enter into a recognizance either by
      himself or his agent, and I think an agent duly appointed to bring an appeal
      has authority to sign the name of the appellant to the recognizance; but
      where the agent signs his own name instead of that of the principal, he
      thereby releases the appellant, as far as the recognizance is concerned,
      form all liability as to costs, which I think was not intended by the act,
      and there is then no compliance with that part of the law which makes it
      necessary, for the appellant to enter into a recognizance. I must therefore
      dismiss the appeal.
      Nine other cases of Sir Roger Palmer's went off upon the same point and
      were accordingly dismissed.
      Mr. O'Donel applied to the court to have the cause of the dismissal of
      the appeals entered as a matter of record in the books.
      Mr. MacAndrew opposed this application and stated that if any
      particular reason were assigned upon the record for the dismissal of the
      appeals, and that appellant afterwards removed the proceedings by certiorari
      to the Queen's Bench, the respondents might be concluded by it, and might be
      deprived of an opportunity of raising any further object to the notice or
      recognizance which he stated that, if necessary, he was prepared to do.
      The Assistant Barrister refused to allow the cause of the dismissal to
      be inserted on the books but said that although his own opinion, on the
      subject was still, in order to allow the appellant an opportunity of
      referring to any decisions upon the point which he might suppose to be in
      his favor, he would allow the cases to remain open until the June Sessions
      of Ballina, when he stated he would confirm the dismisses if no cause were
      shown to the contrary.
      These cases therefore stand thus for the present.

      Cathy Joynt Labath
      Ireland Old News
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.