asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture if he is aware that the House of Lords decided in 1921 that, in the case of the Fenit Island (Hurly) Estate, the landlord was liable for the maintenance of the sea-wall; that the landlord has since refused to pay the sum of £1,400, damages and costs, and that the sea-wall is now almost completely broken down, with the result that these lands were flooded for six months from December, 1924; if the Land Commission have now taken over this estate, without requiring the landlord to discharge the obligation imposed on him by the decision of the House of Lords, and, if not, why that Department have repudiated responsibility for the condition of the sea-wall and have suggested that the tenants should reconstruct it, and if the facts are as stated whether any steps will be taken to compel the landlord to restore the sea-wall, or whether he will undertake to do so.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - FENIT ISLAND SEA-WALL.
SEAMUS O CRUADHLAOICH
It appears the landlord is liable for the maintenance of the embankment referred to, and when a breach occurred some years ago the tenants brought an action for damages against him, and a decision was given in their favour. The landlord appealed and eventually the case went to the House of Lords, where the decision in the tenants' favour was upheld. The damages and costs of these proceedings amount, the Commissioners are informed, to £1,400 or £1,500, and the tenants applied to the Land Commission through their solicitor that they be paid out of the compounded arrears of rent and payment in lieu of rent payable to the landlord. He was informed that this application must be made to the Judicial Commissioner in the manner prescribed by the Rules of the Land Commission, but up to the present such application has not been made.
The estate is pending for sale under the Act of 1923, but it has not yet been vested in the Land Commission. A breach occurred in the embankment in December last year, and the Land Commission called on the landlord to repair it which he has declined to do. The Land Commission informed the solicitor for the tenants that the Commission was not liable for the repair, and stated that it would appear that the tenants would have a right in view of the decision referred to above to repair the embankment and collect the cost as a salvage payment from the landlord, but that this was only the view of the Commissioners, and that he would doubtless advise them. The Commission also stated it appeared to them that such salvage payment would rank before any incumbrances on the allocation of the purchase money of the estate when it had been advanced by the Land Commission.