Perry, Tenant; Farley, Landlord

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1894
Date01 January 1894
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)

Perry, Tenant;

Farley, Landlord.

stantially in the occupation of his holding ? I think that is not exactly a question of law, but more a question of fact; and I am of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances under which these under-tenants are in possession of these plots of land, the tenant is substantially in occupation of his holding. Solicitor for the tenant: Dowries. Solicitor for the landlord: Wright 8f Son. R. D. M. PEEET, TENANT ; FAELET, LANDLORD (1). Agricultural or pastoral holdingLand Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, section 58, sub-section 1. A holding consisted of one acre, situate on the South Circular-road, Dublin, within the municipal boundary. It had formerly been held by the same tenant, along with another acre of land, but the latter portion had been taken by another person, who had let it out as a receptacle for dust and refuse. The holding had been used for agricultural purposes : Held (reversing the decision of the Land Commission), that the holding was not one to which the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 , applied. THE holding originally consisted of about 2 acres (statute measure), which the tenant took about the year 1858 from one Coffey. It was situated on the South Circular-road of the city of Dublin, and the footpath in front of it was a concreted pathway, and there were gas lamps along the road. It was within .the municipal boundary, so far as taxation was concerned. About 100 yards off stood the building, known as the St. Patrick's Home for the Poor, and beyond that was the Eoyal Hospital of Kilmainham, and the South Dublin Workhouse. The tenant lived at Crumlin, about a mile and a quarter away. Coffey, who was a middleman, holding under the Domvile family ceased to be tenant, and about 1888, a man named Barrett was accepted as tenant of one-half of the holding by the head landlord. The entire rent for the 2 acres was originally £12. (1) Before PALLES, C.B., and FITZ GIBBON and BAREY, L.JJ. Appeal. After half the holding was taken by Barrett, Perry's rent was 1894 - reducedTo*,£6 10s., Barrett had let out his acre as a receptacle for , ^ US* r^136 Tenant- FAKLBT' The Sub-Commissioners fixed a fair rent; the Land Commission Landlord. a£g rme(j {-ne deoisi0n, and the landlord appealed. Campbell, Q.C, for the landlord. Teeling, for the tenant. PALLBS, C.B.: In the view which I take of this case, the only question which it is necessary to determine is whether the holding is one to which the Land Act of 1881 applies. This holding is not only-situated within the municipal boundaries of the city of Dublin, but it abuts upon one of the streeta, the South Circular-road, which is paved and lighted. Upon the same side of this street, both above and below the holding in question, but at certain distances from it there are, and as I understand the evidence, there were in 1881, inhabited buildings, the auxiliary workhouse upon the one hand, and buildings in Kilmainham upon the other. In extent, the holding is an English acre, and it is of a form, as appears from the map and from the Assistant Commissioners' Report, suitable for the erection of such a house as would probably be built in such a locality. The holding adjoining it is used as a dust heap, but it appears that the period at which it was first so used was subsequent to 1881. For many years the holding has been used as a market garden. The Act does not apply to any holding which is not " agricultural or pastoral in its charaoter, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral (1)." These words are identical with those in section 71, of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870, which is in pari materia with that of 1881. The Act of 1870 also contained in its 15th section a provision that compensation should not be payable under the previous sections in respect of town-parks, which are described in words identical with those in section 58, sub-sect. 2, of the later Act, and one of the characteristics of whioh is that it must bear an (1) Section 58, sub-section 1. increased value as accommodation land " over'^B^J afaorjsj tilft evia-appeal. nary value of land occupied as a farm." Shortly aftwSttBEpasSBfg 1894 of this Act it was determined by the special Court of Appeal Tenant) constituted by it, in Can- v. Nunn (1), that the mere fact that FABXET, its greater part was used for growing agricultural produce, or for ' Palles c B the depasturing of cattle, did not necessarily bring the holding-within the Act. The question there was in relation to a villa residence, consisting of a house and 8 acres of land attached, of which six acres formed a lawn, and the remainder, with the exception of half an acre, which was in tillage, was under the house and garden. Lord O'Hagan, in giving the unanimous judgment of the Court, said, " "We do not mean to determine that 8 acres might not constitute an agricultural or pastoral holding, or that, under certain circumstances, a much...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • The Great Northern Railway Company, Appellants; The Lurgan Town Commissioners, Respondents
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • December 11, 1896
    ...the fair rent provisions of the Land Law Acts ; and, the Court being of opinion that there was nothing [distinguishing Perry v. Farley (1894, 2 I. R. 579)] in the appearance of the holding of an urban character, and that its physical character and user had not materially changed. since the ......
  • Mary Elizabeth Saunders, Tenant; G. Baldwin Hamilton, Landlord
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • December 1, 1916
    ...(1) [1894] 2 I. R. 611, at p. 626. (2) 34 I. L. T. R. 31, at pp. 32 and 141. (1) 10 L. R. Ir. 362. (2) 13 I. L. T. R. 79. (3) [1894] 2 I. R. 579, at p. (4) [1899] 2 I. R. 453. (1) [1894] 2 I. R. 579. (1) 10 L. R. Ir. 342. (2) 13 I. L T. R. 79. (1) [1894] 2 I. R. 611. (1) [1894] 2 I. R. 611.......
  • The Estate of John Harrison, Owner; ex parte Pardo Archibald Kirk, Petitioner
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • July 10, 1899
    ...Grantor; Gordon, GranteeIR [1897] 2. I. R. 1. Nelson, Tenant; Headford, LandlordUNK 18 L. R. Ir. 407. Perry, Tenant; Farley, LandlordIR [1894] 2 I. R. 579. Pratt, Tenant; Viscount Gormanstown, LandlordIR [1894] 2 I. R. 279, 557. Price v. RobbUNK 17 Ir. L. T. 438. Wall, Tenant; Eyre, Landlor......
  • Midleton v Wallis
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • Invalid date
    ...Appeal dismissed with costs. J. M. Before O'Brien, L.C., and Holmes and Cherry, L.JJ. (1) I. R. 5 C. L. 418. (2) 22 T. L. R. 54. (1) [1894] 2 I. R. 579. (2) 43 I. L. T. R. (3) [1900] 2 Ch. 156. (4) 2 H. & N. 615. (5) I. R. 5 C. L. 418. (6) 22 T L. R. 54. (1) I R. 5 C. L. 418. (2) 22 T. L. R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT