The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-06-22 00:00:00

A CASE UNDER THE IRISH LAND

ACT.

A novel ease connected with the Land Act has been before
the Court of Queens Bench in Dublin in the form of an
application to make absolute a conditional order for a writ
of certiorari to bring up and quail, a conviction by the
Justices sitting at Petty Sossions in Mobil), county Leitrim.
. . .

The facts disclosed in an affidavit of Patrick Geelan,
the prosecutor, were that an ejectment had been
brought by Lord I.eitrim against Michael Geelan,
the prosecutor's father, on a notice to quit, served
to recover possession of a small farm of eight acres.
The tenant had incurred his lordship's displeasure
by putting the petitioner, on the occasion of his
marriage, into possession of the farm, contrary to
be rule of the estate. Michael Geelan thereupon
entered a claim for MAIO compensation for disturbance
and improvement. Patrick Geelan, being in occupation
of the lands, was made a defendant in the ejectment
proceedings. The case came on for hearing at the April
Sessions, and was partly gone into, but was ultimately
settled by an arrangement under which Patrick
Geelan was accepted as a tenant from year to year,
at an increased rent, with clauses against sub-letting
' or dividing, and for good husbandry, the prosecutor
also giving an I 0 U for the rent then due, and the
Chairman making a decree upon the understanding
that it was not to be executed. A dispute after-
wards arose between the parties in reference to a lug
which the tenant wanted to have included in the
holding, but which Lora Leitrim refused to give, and
the result was that in December the decree was en-
forced, the prosecutor put out of the farm, and a care-
taker sent to take charge of it. The prosecutor, man-
aged, however, in the temporary absence of the care-
taker, to get into possession again. Proceedings were
then taken against him at the Petty Sessions, and the
magistrates made an order that the decree should be
re-executed, and the house had since been levelled to
the ground. This ruling was impeached as illegal, and
hence the application to have it quashed.
Mr. MDermott, as counsel for the tenant, argued
that he had a right to enter into possession, and that
the niagistrates a-terl illegally in making the order.
He complained of harshness on Lord Leitrim's part in
ejecting Geelan after the claim under the Land Act
had been waived.
Serjeant Armstrong and Mr. Dames contended, on
the part of Lord Leitrim, that the tenant had violated
his agreement, and that the landlord was entitled to
put in force the degree which he held as guarantee for
its fulfillment. They defended his Lordship from the
imputation of harshness which w a inconsistent with
his character as a considerate and good landlord. The
tenant, they said, had reused to sign the terms of
agreement.
At the close of the discussion, the Lord (Thief Justice
(Whiteside) pronounced the decision of the Court. He
said the facts, the merits, and the law were with the
tenant. The terms which Geelan refttsed to sign were
very long and sot easily understood, and Lord Leitrim
was wrong in enforcing the decree after an express agree-
ment that it was not to be executed. He could have
proceeded against Patrick Ge-1 in if the latter had
taken possession of more land than he ought to have
taken. The re-entry of the tenant was quite lawful,
and the justices had no jurisdiction to make the order
for a re-execution. The order was therefore quashed,
with costs against Lord Leitrim.