asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether he is aware that Mr. John Stack, Receivable Order Number D.350/6, has been noticed by the State Solicitor that a decree was obtained against him at the Easter Circuit Court, Rathkeale, in 1925, for instalments due to the Land Commission on interest in lieu of rent; that Stack has signed an agreement for purchase since 1909 and has refused to pay as a protest against the failure of the Land Commission in not having his holding vested; that Stack attended the Circuit Sessions to defend the case but the State Solicitor made no appearance in Court, and if he will state when and where decree was given against defendant.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - A RATHKEALE DECREE.
Mr. HOGAN
The State Solicitor reports that owing to the large number of Land Commission cases for the Rathkeale Circuit Court at the Easter Sessions of 1925 he foresaw that the Judge would be unable to deal with the undefended cases and he therefore applied to him to have the Rathkeale cases adjourned to the Limerick Court, following the course which the judge had adopted under similar circumstances at the Hilary Sessions. The adjournment of the cases was announced in Court by the judge, and the solicitors concerned in the defended cases agreed to the course adopted. The State Solicitor did not therefore attend at the Rathkeale Circuit Court. The Rathkeale cases and the County Court cases were subsequently fixed for hearing in June at the Limerick Court, the sitting was publicly announced, and, in addition, notice was given to the solicitors defending cases. No defence was entered by Mr. John Stack, and not having entered a defence he was not a party to whom special notice of the hearing should be sent.
As regards the defence of Stack that his holding has not been vested, an agreement for the purchase of the holding was signed by Edmund Stack, and as he was dead the holding could not be included in the portion of the property which was declared by the Commissioners a separate estate under the Irish Land Act of 1903. Subsequently letters of administration with will annexed were lodged and John Stack's name was noted on the purchase agreement as being entitled to the interest of the deceased. It is proposed at an early date to include the holding in a portion of the property which will be declared a separate estate when the holding will be vested in the purchaser.
Is the Minister aware that the defendant, Stack, got notice that the case was to be heard in Rathkeale, while he states it was heard in Limerick? Stack and others appeared in the court at Rathkeale, and they got no notification from the judge that the cases were to be postponed to Limerick. The only information they got was that the State Solicitor had met with an accident on his way to the court. They went on the following day to find out if their cases would be heard, but they were not. They got no notification that their cases would not be heard. Further, there was another civil bill where the defendant was represented by a solicitor, and he got no notification that the case would be tried in Limerick, or in any other place. The fact that Stack's father was dead did not prove that the case ought not to have been heard. There are other tenants whose fathers are not dead, and they are still not vested, after signing nineteen years ago in one case.
Mr. HOGAN
I would like to clear up this matter. I am asked a question about a specific case. It is not hearsay. It is stated that people heard that the State Solicitor was sick, and that is stating something which I am not in a position either to confirm or to deny. It is stated specifically in the answer that "The State Solicitor reports that owing to the large number of Land Commission cases for the Rathkeale Circuit Court"—that was the court at which the Civil Bill was entered—"he foresaw that the judge would be unable to deal with the undefended cases and he therefore applied"—in court, of course—"to him to have the Rathkeale cases adjourned to the Limerick Court." That application was made in open court.
By whom?
Mr. HOGAN
By the State Solicitor.
The State Solicitor was not there, and he was not represented by anybody else.
Mr. HOGAN
I suggest that the Deputy put down a supplementary question challenging this, but I am taking the responsibility of stating now that an application was made in court —possibly I am wrong in saying by the State Solicitor; he might have got another solicitor to do it.
The other solicitors must be asleep then.
Mr. HOGAN
"The adjournment of the cases was announced in court by the judge, and the solicitors concerned in the defended cases agreed to the course adopted." That is surely specific enough. It can be challenged. But my answer to this question is that the cases were entered for Rathkeale court, application was made in court, in view of the fact that the judge could not possibly reach them, to have them adjourned to Limerick, and they were adjourned with the consent of all the solicitors who had defended cases. There was no necessity to send any notification to anybody who had not entered a defence. It is never done. If a man wants a notification of any steps in any proceedings he must enter a defence.
Is the Minister aware that another case was defended by Mr. Wolfe, solicitor, of Abbeyfeale, and he got no notification?
Mr. HOGAN
I stated specifically that the man did not enter a defence. I know that a man sometimes walks into court at the last moment and asks a solicitor to defend his case, but that does not improve his position, because he is then too late to enter a defence.