The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-20 00:00:00

IRISH LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN, MAv 14.
On a former day a rule Nisi, for a writ of resti-
tution to certain lands in the county of Roscommon,
seas obtained by 77 poor tenants, who had been
ejected by their landlord, Mr. Dillon, in the same
county.
Mr. JOHNSTON and Mr. M`CANN showed cause
against the rule to-day, and read several affidavits
to show that the notices to quit and ejectments were
regularly served.
Mr. CRAMPTON said he appeared to support the
rule, and protect these unfortunate peasants, 77 of
whom had been inhumanly cast forth from their
habitations, with their wretched families in the depth
of winter. Such an act committed by a landlord,
even in adherence to the strictest rules of law, would
he an act of inhumanity and oppressive tyranny ; but
when committed in violation of the laws, and when
every artifice was used to strain the law to its justifi-
cation, it was an act which he could find no language
to characterise, and which should be disconetenanced
by every man of high and honourable feeling. lbw
any man could find it in his heart to send out upon
the world 77 wretched peasants, with their wives
and children, in the month of February, leaving them
unsheltered from the inclemency of the weather, he
could not conceive. These unfortunate peasants
had all paid their rents. This was not the cause of
the oppressive conduct of this Mr.. Dillon, of Mount
Dillon. No, his object was to get possession of the
lands to which these poor people had a just and le-
gal title. They held by lease, and Mr. Dillon, by
an ingenious contrivance, made them tenants from
year to year. The rent reserved by lease was in
Irish currency, but by a new agreement they were
to pay the stone amount in the new currency. This
new agreement, the effect of which the wretched
people were quite ignorant of, converted them into'
tenants from year to year, and Mr. Dillon, having
thus effected his purpose, soon after six months
served notices to quit. These notices were served
on the 24th or 230 of April, 1828, but Mr. Dil-
lon, doubting whether that was the proper day to
serve them, served others on the Bth of July follow-
ing, which were a waver of the first. The six
months would not have expired till the Bth of Fe-
bruary, yet Mr. Dillon, as he states, served his
ejectments on the Bth of January (but the tenants
denied that they were served at all), and judgment
having gone by default, had an Habeas en the Bth
of February, by which he got into possession, and
turned out these unfortunate men. To give their
Lordships some idea of the feeling by which these
aristocratic landlords are animated—
Lord PLUNKETT—Aristocratic ! That is a hard
word, Mr. Crompton. I should be sorry that the
aristocracy of this country were such landlords as
Mr. Dillon.
(Mr. Dillon, who had been hitherto in Court,
upon seeing Lord Plunkett's opinion against him,
left the Court.)
Mr. CRAMPTON admitted it was an improper
word, and he should not have used it. These poor
men sent a notice to Mr. Dillon, who is a Magis-
trate, calling upon him to restore them to posses-
sion, as his proceedings were illegal. The man who
served the notice was arrested by Mr. Dillon, and
thrown into prison ; and when bail was offered to
Mr. Dillon, he refused it en the ground that it could
only be taken before two Magistrates.
Mr. SnEin followed on the same side, and read
passages from several affidavits to show the Mega.
lity of Mr. Dillon's conduct. He would not, as
their Lordships disliked the term, call him an aristo-
cratic, but he would call him a tyrannical, oppres-
sive, autocratic landlord. Can your Lordships look
at the miserable wretches congregated in the gal-
lery, who travelled up here to have:the gratification
of witnessing justice dispensed at your Lordships'
hands, without feeling that this has been as gross
an act of oppression as ever came before a Court
y _
of Justice ?
Lord PLUNKETT—The Court has no hesitation in
prouncing that a writ of restitution should imme-
diately issue. That these poor men have been the
victims of gross oppression there can be no doubt,
aggravated as it is by the circumstance of its being
inflicted by that person who was in duty bound to
be their protector.
The rule was made absolute, and the costs given
against Mr. Dillon.
[About a dozen of these poor peasants, in their
tattered frieze garments, came upwards of a hundred
miles to see, as they said, if justice would be done
them or not. They remained in the gallery, and
watched every word uttered with the most anxious
attention. When they found Lord Plunkett was in
their favour. their joy was excessive, and some of
them exclaimed, " Uh, Lord bless you !—after all,
we will .go back to our cabins again." When the
Court , pronounced its opinion, they came into the
Hall and gave their blessings to Lord Plunkett, say-
ing that it was there justice was to be had. I asked
some of them how they lived since they were turned
out, and they solemnly assured me that they lived
upon ose meal of potatoes.a day ; and, out of what-
ever little they had, they subscribed 10s. each to
carry on the law, as they said. A poor widow,
amongst them, said that she, too, and her six chil-
dren, had been turned out, and they were ever since
living upon one meal of potatoes a day. Their
wretched appearance bore testimony to the truth of
their statement. What patience they exhibited un-
der such sufferings ! but they returned quite happy
at their victory.]