asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries if he is aware that Mr. Patrick Leach, Curnalee, Curraghboy, Athlone, was sued by the Land Commission for one half-year's arrears of rent, alleged to have been due, the date of the summons being 25th May, 1929; if he is further aware that Mr. Leach holds an official receipt for the same half-year's rent, dated 14th May, 1929; and whether, in view of this obvious mistake on the part of the Land Commission, the Minister will see that Mr. Leach is at least paid his out of pocket expenses for attending the court.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Roscommon Rent Case.
Proceedings were taken through the State Solicitor for Roscommon against Patrick Leach for recovery of 16s. 6d., the half-yearly instalment of rent due to the Land Commission on the 1st November, 1928. This sum reached the Land Commission on the 14th May, 1929, having been paid through a bank. A six-day notice demanding payment was issued to Mr. Leach on the 1st April, 1929. As the debt was not paid when it accrued due or within a reasonable time thereafter, the Land Commission are unable to entertain a claim for any out of pocket expenses Mr. Leach may have incurred by reason of his default.
Mr. Boland
Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how it comes that a summons was issued on the 25th May when the man had a receipt for his rent on the 14th May? There must have been a mistake, I submit, on the part of the Land Commission. I have here the official receipt, the receivable order, dated 14th May, and I have also got the summons dated the 25th May. How does it happen that an official receipt was issued on the 14th May, and that the man was prosecuted a fortnight later for arrears of rent which he had paid? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that if the case went against the man he would have to pay all expenses? It is a most unjust case altogether. If it is a mistake, and I think it is admitted that a mistake was made in the Department, seeing that a receipt was issued a fortnight previously, I think it is only fair that the man should be paid his expenses. He was laughed out when he went into court. If Mr. Neilan had succeeded he would have to be paid his expenses, as he always sees to that. Every Deputy knows that the costs in these cases are piled up against the tenant until they are much more than the rent itself very often. This man is over seventy years of age, he had seven miles to come to court, and he had to hire a car. He was laughed out when he asked for his expenses. I think it is only right that something should be done for him.
If the tenant, Mr. Leach, had paid his rent in the ordinary way and at the ordinary time this difficulty would not have arisen. The rent was not paid until it was six months overdue. It was sent on when the staff was particularly busy in sending out receipts. The question of allowing costs was raised in court, and they were not allowed to Mr. Leach by the District Justice.
Mr. Boland
We are not allowed to criticise the District Justice or I would say what I think about him. I am entitled to criticise the Department, and the Department had followed this man to the extent of prosecuting him for money which he did not owe. Even if there was 16/6 arrears due, there are several cases of persons amongst supporters of the Government who owe five and six years' rent and who have never been prosecuted. This case should have been inquired into before proceedings were instituted. I never heard of such a case before..
If he had paid his rent in the ordinary way the case would not have arisen.
Mr. Boland
The Department made a mistake and they should have paid the costs.