The Estate of Samuel Bradford, Owner and Petitioner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 15 June 1893
• Date: 15 June 1893
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

Monroe, J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL BRADFORD,

OWNER AND PETITIONER.

Bradford v. ReidDLTR 12 Ir. L. T. R. 139.

Barcroft v. WellandUNK 12 L. R. Ir. 35.

Powerscourt v. MitchellUNK 4 L. R. Ir. 82.

Stott v. WalshDLTR 27 Ir. L. T. R. 70.

Palmer v. Power 4 Ir C. L. R. 191.

Malton v. WestUNK Ir. R. 11 C. L. 525.

Barcroft v. WellandUNK 12 L. R. Ir. 35.

Bradford v. ReidDLTR 12 Ir. L. T. R. 139.

Hely v. KennedyDLTR 8 Ir. L. T. R. 26.

Magee v. Marquis of BathDLTR 16 Ir. L. T. R. 119.

Powerscourt v. MitchellUNK 4 L. R. Ir. 94.

Palmer v. PowerUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 191.

Greene v. ThorntonUNK 16 L. R. Ir. 381.

Scovell v. GardinerUNK 16 Ir. C. L. R. 316.

Morrogh v. HallUNK 32 L. R. Ir. 216.

Lord Powerscourt v. MitchellUNK 4 L. R. Ir. 82.

Lease — Reddendum — Liability of tenant of grand jury cess — Owner accepting lease from receiver Judge — Occupation prior to 1870 — 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 46, s. 65.)

364 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. It. I. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL BRAD FORD, OWNER AND PETITIONER. Lease-Reddendura-Liability of tenant to grand jury cess-Owner accepting lease from Receiver Judge-Occupation prior to 1870-Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870 (33 ( 34 Vict. c. 46, s. 65.) Lease reserving a yearly rent " over and above all taxes, charges, and impositions whatsoever _Held, that the lessee was not entitled to deduct half grand jury cess. Bradford v. Reid (12 Ir. L. T. R. 139) dissented from. A lessee entitled to make such a deduction, if he voluntarily pays gales of rent without doing so, cannot deduct the half of the grand jury cess paid during the accrual of such gales from rent afterwards becoming due. An owner who had been in occupation, prior to 1870, of part of his estate, over which a receiver was appointed, accepted after that year a lease from the Receiver Judge : Held, that he did not become the occupier under the lease, and was not thereÂfore within the terms of the 65th section of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870. APPLICATION, by summons, to Monroe, J., as Receiver Judge, for an order that Mr. Samuel Bradford, the owner, who had accepted leases from the Court, as stated in the judgment, infra, p. 366, should be allowed by the Receiver out of the rents due, or accruing due, out of the portions of the estate of which he was lessee, the sum of £84 4s. 9d., half of grand jury cess paid by him as such lessee. Mr. Bradford had been in occupation as owner of these preÂmises antecedently to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870, and so continued until March, 1891, when the usual order to put an occupation rent on these premises was made. He elected to become lessee under the Court, and the material clause of the several leases, which were in this respect similar in terms, is stated in the judgment, infra, p. 366. R. E. Meredith, Q.C., in support of the application :- The construction of the lease is ruled by Bradford v. Reid (1). Monroe, J. The covenant in that case, which was held insufficient to exclude 1893. re In the tenant from the benefit of the 65th section of the Landlord R 11ADFORD'S and Tenant Act, 1870, cannot be distinguished from the redden- ESTATE. durn in each of the leases now under consideration. This case was cited and not disapproved of by Dowse, B., in Bareroft v. WelÂland (2),which, though arising upon a claim as to the deduction of poor rates, is an authority in favour of Mr. Bradford's contention. He is clearly within the 65th section. His former occupation was as owner : occupation under a tenancy only commenced when the leases of March, 1891, were executed. Powerscourt v. Mitchell (3) has no application to this case. T. P. Law, Q.C., for the Bank of Ireland, incumbranoers, resisted the application : Grand jury cess is different from poor rate. It is a charge on the lands. Bradford v. Reid (1) is no longer law. In recent cases it has neither been recognized nor followed. It is not, at all events, a decision binding on this Court. As to the 65th section, the owner was in continuous occupaÂtion from before the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870. He was never disturbed. He took the leases in purÂsuance of the usual practice of the Court ; but there was no break in the occupation. He did not come in under the lease, and the case does not fall within the 65th section. At all events, he cannot now claim the half of the cess which he paid during the currency of rent which he voluntarily discharged without claiming deduction, and without protest : Stott v. Walsh (4). [Meredith, Q.C.: I was counsel in that case, which arose upon the right to deduct poor rates. Holmes, J., held that as a matter of fact the whole account was open, and there was no legal point whatever decided. Law, Q.C.: The section of the Poor Law Act upon which the case was argued is in language almost identical with the 65th section of the Act of 1870.1 (1) 12 Ir. L. T. R. 139. (3) 4 L. R. Ir. 82. (2) 12 L. IL Ir. 35. (4) 27 Ir. L. T. IL 70. LAW...