Tevlin v Lisnaskea Rural District Council

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeK. B. Div.
Judgment Date25 June 1913
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
Date25 June 1913
Tevlin
and
Lisnaskea Rural District Council (1).

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1914.

Local Government — Labourers (Ireland) Acts — Improvement scheme founded on representation signed bg agricultural labourer — Right of action of labourer if not given preference on first letting — Plot suggested in representation not included in scheme — Omission of rural district council to make regulations for letting of cottages — Jurisdiction of Local Government Board as to selection of labourers for cottages — Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 37, c. 7), s. 29.

Where land is acquired by a rural district council under an improvement scheme, made under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts and founded on a representation made on behalf of an agricultural labourer, such labourer has an action for damages against the district council if guilty of a breach of their statutory obligation, under sect. 29 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 (2), to give him a preference on the first letting of a cottage or allotment.

The action lies notwithstanding the omission by the district council to make regulations, pursuant to sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 29, providing for the giving of preference to agricultural labourers who have signed the representation on which the scheme is founded.

The action lies notwithstanding that the particular plot suggested in the representation as a site for a cottage for such labourer is not included in the scheme.

The selection of labourers for particular cottages is a matter outside the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board.

Sub-s. 2: “Regulations under this section shall provide that, on the first letting of any cottages or allotments comprised in a scheme, preference shall be given to agricultural labourers who have signed on their own behalf the representation on which the scheme was founded, or on whose behalf that representation was made.”

Sub-s. 4: “Regulations under this section shall not be of any force until confirmed by the Local Government Board in like manner and subject to the like provisions as in case of bye-laws under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.”

Case Stated by Palles, C.B., on the hearing of a civil-bill appeal.

The appeal was from a dismiss pronounced by the County Court Judge of county Fermanagh. The civil-bill was for £50 damages for that the defendants the Lisnaskea Rural District Council, being under a statutory obligation under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts to provide a plot of land and a cottage for the plaintiff, refused to provide such; and for that the defendants, the said council, being under a statutory obligation to give the plaintiff a preference in the allotting of a plot of land in the townland of Derrylin, refused to give the plaintiff the said preference, and gave the plot in question to the defendant William Blake, a person who was not, under the said Acts, entitled to such plot; and for an injunction restraining and prohibiting the defendants, the said council, from permitting the said lands to be occupied by any other person than the plaintiff. The annual value of the lands was stated not to exceed £30. Damages were sought against the defendant William Blake for aiding and abetting the defendants the council in their illegal acts, and for trespassing on the said plot.

The Lord Chief Baron dismissed the civil-bill as against William Blake without costs, and no question arose as against him.

As regards the rural district council, the following were the material facts stated by the Lord Chief Baron to be found by him or admitted:—

The plaintiff was an agricultural labourer residing in the rural district of Lisnaskea. The Lisnaskea Rural District Council, prior to framing a scheme for the acquisition of land and the building of cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, had issued the usual advertisements intimating their intention to frame such scheme. Two representations (inter alia) under the Labourers Acts were lodged with the district council. One of these was lodged on behalf of the plaintiff, and suggested a cottage and plot for him, the cottage to be built for him in the townland of Mullyneeny, on the lands of Mr. Patrick Blake, the chairman of the Lisnaskea Rural District Council. The other representation had been lodged on behalf of John Curry, suggesting a cottage and plot of land for him, the cottage to be built on land in the town-land of Derrylin, also the property of Mr. Blake.

The council considered the representations, and decided that it would not be reasonable to take two plots and erect two cottages on Mr. Blake's land. The chairman wrote at the foot of the representation on behalf of the plaintiff— “Rejected; too many applications for plots on same farm.” The council decided to accede to the representation of John Curry for the plot in Derrylin. The district council framed a scheme in the form No. 15 in the schedule to the rules of the Local Government Board of November, 1906. Among the sites mentioned in the schedule to the scheme was a site described as “Doon, Derrylin, site No. 6, No. 38, 1a. 20p.” The scheme did not set out the name of the labourer on whose representation the cottage was to be acquired. The scheme, and copies of the representations on which it was based, were sent forward to the Local Government Board.

On the 2nd November, 1909, a Local Government Board inquiry was held by an inspector of the Local Government Board as to the propriety of confirming the scheme. In the interval between the framing of the scheme and the holding of the inquiry, Curry had left the district and had not returned. Mr. Murphy, the plaintiff's solicitor, appeared at the inquiry and asked to have the cottage for which Curry had applied given to the plaintiff. Evidence was given that the plaintiff was an agricultural labourer, and that the house in which he was then living was unfit for habitation. It was not proved that the rural district council or Curry received notice of the application on behalf of the plaintiff. The Local Government Board inspector acceded to Mr. Murphy's application, and wrote in the column for observations on the schedule of cases allowed after local inquiry, opposite the entry “Doon, Derrylin, 6, 38, 1a. 20p.,” the words “Thomas Tevlin to be substituted for original applicant.”

The inspector wrote to the Lisnaskea District Council giving particulars of eight cases in which he had changed the names of the labourers who originally applied, and had substituted the names of other applicants. The name of the plaintiff was one of the eight. The letter was read, and entered as “read” upon the minutes of the council. The council did not make any objection.

A Provisional Order, dated the 2nd December, 1909, was issued by the Local Government Board, sanctioning the acquisition of (inter alia) the plot 6, 38, in the townland of Derrylin. This Order was made by the Local Government Board under the belief and with the intention that the cottage should be let to the plaintiff. The rural district council proceeded to enforce the Provisional Order and acquire the plot in question 6, 38, and paid Mr. Patrick Blake therefor the price awarded by the arbitrator; and such plot became legally vested in the district council.

At a meeting of the council held on the 2nd March, 1912, a resolution was passed by a majority of the council, accepting as tenant of the site in question the defendant William Blake, who had sent in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • McDaid v Milford Rural District Council
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 1 January 1919
    ...Held, by the King's Bench Division (Sir James Campbell, C.J., and Dodd, J.) (following Tevlin v. Lisnaskea Rural District Council, [1914] 2 I. R. 15), that a temporary letting under s. 15 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1886, is a letting of an allotment within s. 29 of the Labourers (Irela......
  • O'Shea v Cork Rural District Council
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 13 November 1913
    ...if the Attorney-General were joined as a plaintiff, the action would not be maintainable. Tevlin v. Lisnaskea Rural District Council ([1914] 2 I. R. 15) distinguished. When misconduct in the performance of their duties is alleged against a public body, and it becomes necessary to take legal......
  • Marron v Cootehill (No. 2) Rural District Council
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 22 January 1914
    ...scheme under the Labourers Acts was founded. R. ST. J. C. (1) [1913] 2 I. R. 241. (2) 47 I. L. T. R. 31. (3) Unreported. Since reported [1914] 2 I. R. 15. (4) Unreported. Since reported [1914] 1 I. R. 113, (1) Since reported [1914] 2 I. R. 15. (2) Since reported [1914] 1 I. R. 113, 118. (1)......
  • Byrne v Hughes
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
    • 18 April 1925
    ...be deprived of that jurisdiction by the non-existence of Rules of procedure or Forms. Tevlin v. Lisnaskea Rural District Council, [1914] 2 I. R. 15; Canning v. Farren, [1907] 2 I. R. 486 and Attorney-General for Ontario v. DalyELR, [1924] A. C. 1011, followed. As the portion of the plaintif......
  • 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