asked the Minister for Justice if he will state how many seizures for unpaid annuities were made between January 1st, 1934, and July 1st, 1935, by the sub-sheriff of the County of Cork; the total of the unpaid annuities in respect of which these executions were levied; the number of cattle, sheep and horses seized; how, to whom and for what sum they were disposed of; the cost to the State of these seizures and sales; how, where, to whom, and for what amounts the cattle were sold by those that purchased them at the sheriff's sales; and if any of the said purchasers were agents of the Government.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Seizures for Annuities in Cork.
As a question of this kind was addressed to me some weeks ago by Deputy Morrissey and as certain other Deputies have signified their intention of asking similar questions I think it well to explain the position of the Minister for Justice in this matter. Under Section 28 of the Land Act, 1933, the Land Commission is empowered to issue to the under-sheriff a warrant for arrears of payments due. A warrant issued under this section has the same force and effect of an execution order within the meaning of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926, and the Minister for Justice has no authority to interfere with the under-sheriff in the execution thereof or to direct him as to what classes of goods or things he should seize or as to how he should dispose of seizures. The Minister has only one power in the matter, namely to make regulations as to the notices to be served and the things to be done by the under-sheriff before executing a warrant which he has received from the Land Commission; and in pursuance of these powers I have in fact prescribed that 15 days' notice shall be given to defaulters by the under-sheriff before execution is levied so that annuitants may have a last opportunity to pay the amounts and thus avoid the inevitable inconvenience and expense of a seizure. When, however, a seizure is made by the under-sheriff he is personally responsible for carrying out the requirements of the law in regard to such seizure and he is liable to heavy penalties should he omit to do so. Persons who consider that they have been prejudiced by the act or default of the under-sheriff have their remedy at law. It is not my practice nor has it been the practice of my predecessors to interfere administratively, except in the case of gross or palpable misconduct, until aggrieved persons have exhausted their remedy at law. As regards the detailed information which is asked for in the question, the returns which are furnished to my Department by the under-sheriffs do not contain particulars as to the number and nature of the seizures made or as to how such seizures are disposed of by the under-sheriff, nor have the returns furnished to the Department of Justice ever included information of this kind. I have no information as to how chattels purchased at under-sheriffs' sales are subsequently disposed of. As regards the cost to the State, the main portion of the cost is incurred in affording adequate police protection to the under-sheriff and his assistants. It would be difficult to make any reliable estimate of the sum involved, but it is small in comparison to the sum which would be lost to the State if such protection were not afforded. The Government does not employ agents for the purpose of purchasing chattels at under-sheriffs' sales.
It is part of the functions of the Minister for Justice to indicate how many much cattle shall be seized for every pound of debt?
No, it is not.
Has any Minister any responsibility for controlling the number of cattle that shall be seized for every pound of debt?
It is a matter entirely for the sheriff.
Is it the position then that vindictive robbery can be carried on by a sheriff at the dictation of the local Fianna Fáil club?
That is not relevant to the question.