Viscount Massereene v Bellew

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 June 1889
• Date: 20 June 1889
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. B. Div.

Before SIR MICHAEL MORRIS, C. J., and HARRISON, O'BRIEN, and HOLMES, JJ.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE

and

BELLEW

Demand of possession from caretaker by known agent or receiver Sufficiency of Case stated under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43 Service on opposite party.

420 LAW IMPORTS (IRELAND). [L. IL I. VISCOUNT MASSEREENE v. BET.TiEW (1). Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860, sect. 86-Demand of possession from caretaker by known agent or receiver-Sufficiency of-. Case stated under 20 4. 21 Viet c. 43-Service on opposite party. It is not essential that a demand of possession to found a summons, under sect. 86 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 154), should be personally made by the known agent of the landlord. Where such known agent signed a written demand of possession, and (also in writing) authorized a bailiff to serve same, and take up possession of the premises thereunder, and such notice was personally served on the caretaker :- Reid, that same was a sufficient demand of possession, and was a comÂÂpliance with section 86 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. e. 154). Where a copy case stated by justices, under 20 & 21 Viet. c. 43, was sent in a registered letter to the solicitor who had appeared before the justices for the opposite party, and had approved of the draft case on his behalf, but had since ceased to act for him : Held, that such ease stated had been sufficiently served on the opposite party. CASE STATED for the opinion of this Division by the Justices of Slane Petty Sessions District under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. The officer of the Division drew the attention of the Court to the mode of service of the case upon the respondent, which (as appeared from an affidavit by appellant's solicitor) was as follows : The case, having been prepared hp appellant's solicitor, was approved of on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Wea,rthy, a solicitor, who had appeared for the respondent on the hearing before the Justices. Subsequently a copy of the completed case was sent by regisÂÂtered letter to the said Mr. Wealthy, who thereupon wrote to (1) Before Bin MICHAEL MORRIS, C. J., and IIABRISON, O'BRus, and RoLmna, Vol.. XXIV.] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 421 appellant's solicitor, stating that he would not accept service, Q. B. Div. inasmuch as he was no longer solicitor for the respondent. 1889. The Court held the service sufficient. The material facts of the case...