LEGAL POSTINGS:

FINAL NOTICE TO CLAIMANTS AND INCUMBRANCERS. COURT OF THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

PIERCE

Land Purchase Acts.

Record No. 2,510.

In the Matter of the Estate of EDWARD

A Vendor of Land.

HUGHES,

TAKE NOTICE, that the Final Schedule of Incumbrances affecting part of the Lands of Kilcavan, containing 160 acres 3 roods 2 perches, statute measure, and the Lands of Quitchery Little, both situate in the Barony of Bargy, and County of Wexford, which have been sold under the above Acts in feesimple, freed and discharged from all superior interests, as defined by Section 31 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and from all other charges and incumbrances, has been lodged in my office, at 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, and any person having any claim not therein inserted, or objecting thereto, either on account of the amount or the priority of any charge therein reported as due to him or any other person, or for any other reason, is required to lodge an objection thereto, stating the particulars of his demand, and duly verified, with the Registrar of this Court, on or before the 27th day of June, 1901, and to appear on the following Monday, the 1st day of July, 1901, at 11 o'clock, before the JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER, at his Court, at the Four Courts, Dublin, when he will adjudicate upon the several claims appearing on the And Schedule, and upon any objections lodged thereto. further Take Notice that any demand reported by such Schedule is liable to be objected to within the time aforesaid. Dated this 21st day of May, 1901.

100

GEORGE V. HART, K C., Examiner. HENRY F. MARTLEY, Solicitor for the Vendor, 30 Westland-row, Dublin.

FINAL NOTICE TO CLAIMANTS AND INCUMBRANCERS. COURT OF THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION. Land Purchase Acts.

Record No. 2,382.

In the Matter of the Estate of

ENRIETTA CHATEAUNEUF JOHNSTON,

HENRIETTA

DICKINSON, wife of HoWARD DICKINSON, Vendors of
Land.

TAKE NOTICE, that the Final Schedule of Incumbrances affecting part of the Lands of Kingsland, otherwise Ballinlinea, containing 214 acres and 12 perches, or thereabouts, statute measure, situate in the Barony of Connello Upper, and County of Limerick, which has been sold under the above Acts in feesimple, freed and discharged from all superior interests, as defined by Section 31 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and from all other charges and incumbrances, has been lodged in my office, at 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, and any person having any claim not therein inserted, or objecting thereto, either on account of the amount or the priority of any charge therein reported as due to him or any other person, and especially as to any claim in respect of the charge of £200, with interest, created by Indenture of Mortgage, dated the 2nd day of January, 1861, made between the Reverend Henry Chateauneuf Tuthill of the one part, and Mathew Browne, of Holles-street, in the City of Dublín, Solicitor, of the other part, or in respect of the sub-mortgage thereof, dated the 22nd day of May, 1863, by the said Mathew Browne to Henry Watson, of St. Andrew-street, Dublin, Solicitor, for the sum of £104 18s. 6d., with interest, or in respect of the mortgage, dated the 30th day of March, 1865, for the sum of £100, with interest, made between the said Henry Chateauneuf Tuthill of the one part, and Joshua Pim, of Rathgar, in the County of Dublin, Esquire, of the other part, or in respect of the Mortgage dated the 1st day of August, 1864, made between the said Henry Chateauneuf Tuthill and Charles M. Burnett, of Alton, Hants, Esquire, M.D., or in respect of the judgment for the sum of £105 3s. 4d. and £11 0s. 6d. for costs obtained by Robert Roe, late of Loran Park, in the County of Tipperary, Esquire, deceased. on 29th July, 1871, and registered as a Mortgage against the above Lands on the 19th day of August, 1871, and in regard to which herein before mentioned charges the Vendors do not admit any liability, or for any other reason, is required to lodge an objection thereto, stating the particulars of his demand, and duly verified, with the Registrar of this Court, on or before the 4th day of July, 1901, and to appear on the following Monday, the 8th day of July, 1901, at 11 o'clock, before the JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER, at his Court, at the Four Courts, Dublin, when he will adjudicate upon the several claims appearing on the And Schedule, and upon any objections lodged thereto. further Take Notice that any demand reported by such Schedule is liable to be objected to within the time aforesaid. Dated this 23rd day of May, 1901.

102

GEORGE V. HART, K.C., Examiner. BAKER & RINGWOOD, Solicitors for the Vendors, 5 Clare-street, Dublin.

TAKE NOTICE, that the final Schedule of Incumbrances affecting the Lands of Cloghaunbeg and Kilcloher, part of the Lands of Tullig, containing 815 acres 2 roods 34 perches, or thereabouts. and two undivided third parts of other part of said Lands of Tullig, containing 130 acres and 30 perches, or thereabouts, and part of the Lands of Killinny, containing 355 acres and 6 perches, or thereabouts, all statute measure, and situate in the Barony of Moyarta, and County of Clare, which have been sold under the above Acts in fee-simple, freed and discharged from all superior interests, as defined by Section 31 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and from all other charges and incumbrances, has been lodged in my office, at 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, and any person having any claim not therein inserted, or objecting thereto, either on account of the amount or the priority of any charge therein reported as due to him or to any other person, or for any other reason, is required to lodge an objection thereto, stating the particulars of his demand, and duly verified, with the Registrar of this Court, on or before the 20th day of June, 1901, and to appear on the following Monday, the 24th day of June, 1901, at 11 o'clock, before the JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER, at his Court, at the Four Courts, Dublin, when he will adjudicate upon the several claims appearing on the Schedule, and upon any objections lodged thereto. And further Take Notice that any demand reported by such Schedule is liable to be objected to within the time aforesaid.

In the Matter of the Estate of

MARY LISSEY BERNARD, wife of PERCY

BRODERICK BERNARD, a Vendor of Land. Continued in the name of the said PERCY BRODERICK BERNARD, the executor under the Will, dated 30th April, 1898, of the said MARY LISSEY BERNARD, deceased; and in the Matter of the Estate of the said PERCY BRODERICK BERNARD, a Vendor of Land.

TAKE NOTICE, that the Final Schedule of Incumbrances affecting the Lands of Ardrumkilla (Parish of Belclare), Ardrumkilla (part of), Parish of Killower, containing 33 acres 1 rood and 20 perches; Ballintleva, Beagh Beg, Biggera Beg, Bunatober (part of), containing 462 acres 3 roods and 24 perches: Cahermorris, Caltragh (Parish of Belclare), Caltragh (Parish of Killower), Cluidrevagh (part of), containing 677 acres 1 rood and 26 perches; Glennaneeny, Fearagha (part of), containing 762 acres and 4 perches; Kilcurriv, Eighter and Parkanallacan, all situate in the Barony of Clare and County of Galway, parts of which have been sold and the residue of which it is contemplated selling under the above Acts in fee-simple, freed and discharged from all superior interests as defined by Section 31 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and from all other charges and incumbrances, has been lodged in my office at 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, and any person having any claim not therein inserted, or objecting thereto, either on account of the amount or the priority of any charge therein reported as due to him or any other person, and especially as to any claim in respect of the sum of £30 168., part of a sum of £9,230 16s, present currency, created by Indenture of Setttement dated 7th April, 1806, in favour of younger children, executed on the marriage of John Kirwan, the younger, and Penelope Burke, or the legacies of £500 each bequeathed to John Sligo Kirwan and James Kirwan under a codicil dated 13th day of December, 1861, to the Will dated 20th April, 1861, of Denis Kirwan, in regard to which charges the vendors do not admit any liability, or for any other reason, is required to lodge an objection thereto, stating the particulars of his demand and duly verifled, with the Registrar of this Court on or before the 28th day of June, 1901, and to appear on the following Monday, the 1st day of July, 1901, at 11 o'clock, before the Judicial Commissioner, at his Court, at the Four Courts, Dublin, when he will adjudicate upon the several claims appearing on the Schedule, and upon any objections lodged thereto. And further Take Notice that any demand reported by such Schedule is liable to be objected to within the time aforesaid.

Dated this 22nd day of May, 1901.

R. S. LONGWORTH-DAMES, Examiner. GEORGE D. FOTTRELL & SONS, Solicitors for the Vendors, 104 46 Fleet-street, Dublin.

PUBLICATIONS:

WM. CLOWES & SONS, LTD.,

Law Publishers & Booksellers, Printers and Publishers to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales,

7 FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.C. (Adjoining Middle Temple Lane.)

Just published, demy 8vo, cloth, 12s. 6d. THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT AS THE ARBITRATOR BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE CONTRACTOR; and his other Functions under Building Contracts. By CHARLES CURRIE GREGORY, Member of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers; Associate Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, England; Barrister-at-Law, of Osgoode. Hall, and of the Bar of Nova Scotia.

Just published, demy 8vo, cloth, 27s. 6d. THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS, 1883 and 1900, and other Agricultural Statutes, including those relating to Distress, Game, and Workmen's Compensation. Arranged, with Notes and Forms. By J. M. LELY, M.A., Editor of "Woodfall's Law of Landlord and Tenant," and W. HANBURY AGGS, M.A., LL.M., Barristers-at-Law. Founded on Lely and Pearce's "Agricultural Holdings."

Second Edition, demy 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (The Law relating to). Comprising the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, together with an Appendix containing Model Rules and the Forms appended to the Treasury Regulations, 1897. By F. BADEN FULLER, B.A. (Oxon.), of the Inner Temple, Barrrister-at-Law.

"We can thoroughly recommend the publication to the chief and district officials of all friendly societies."-Friendly Societies Recorder.

IRISH

PUBLIC NOTICES:

LAND COMMISSION.

The Irish Land Commissioners have; in conformity with Rules 142 and 170 of the Rules of the 2nd January, 1897, ordered a Schedule of Agreements and Declarations fixing fair rents, and of Agreements under Section 17 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, to be inserted in the Dublin Gazette of 21st May, 1901.

A copy of this Schedule, in which are entered all Agreements and Declarations, and Agreements under the said Section 17. lodged during the month of April, 1901, will be sent to any person who applies for the same to the Secretary, Irish Land Commission, 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin. JOHN H. FRANKS.

By Order,

Irish Land Commission,

24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, 22nd May, 1901.

CIVIL SERVICE

103

COMMISSION.

FORTHCOMING EXAMINATION. Clerks of the First Division in the Estate Duty Office, London (21-27), 20th June. The date specified is the latest at which applications can be received. They must be made on forms to be obtained, with particulars, from the Secretary, Civil Service Commission, London, 8.W.

105

OETZMANN &
ANN & CO.,

Complete House Furnishers,

62, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, & 79 HAMPSTEAD-ROAD, LONDON, W. 61 Grafton-street, Dublin. ILLUSTRATED Catalogur (754 pages, and nearly 3,000 Illustrations GRATIS AND POST FREE 138

NOW READY-Royal 8vo, cloth. Price 30s. Nett Cash, 25s. Bound in full Law Calf, 6s. 6d. extra. Postage, 6d. extra.

NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION OF

MILLER'S PROBATE PRACTICE,

Being a Compendium of the Probate Practice of the QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (PROBATE) AND OF THE COUNTY COURTS IN IRELAND; Also of the Principal and District Registries in granting Probats and Letters of Administration; with Appendices of Statutes, Rules, Forms and Schedules of Fees and Costs.

RE-WRITTEN AND REVISED BY

THOMAS HENRY MAXWELL, BA., Barrister-at-Law.

Dublin: JOHN FALCONER, 53 Up. Sackville St.

REEVES & TURNER. Law Booksellers and Publishers Libraries Valued or Purchased.

A Large Stock of Second-hand Law Reports and Text-books always on Sale.

10 CHANCERY LANE & CAREY-STREET. 79

On the First Day of each Month

FALCONER'S A-B-C RAILWAY GUIDE.

PRICE 3d., by post, 44d.

THE MOST COMPLETE TIME TABLES,

AND

BRST ADVERTISING MRDIUM IN IRELAND.

JOHN FALCONER, 53 UPPER SACKVILLE-STREET, DUBLIN.

AND

VOL. XXXV.

CONTENT S.

No. 1,792.

The Reports of cases published in the IRISH LAW TIMES are composed and published on the terms that the copyright therein is to belong to the Publisher and Proprietor. LAND LAWS-Practice-Extension of time for serving notice of appeal. Joyce, Landlord, v. Gleeson, Teuant p. 117 LAND LAWS-Practice-Allegation that valuers acted on erroneous principles – Application for leave to issue a subæna for the attendance of the valuers for examination. M'Donnell and Others, Tenants, v. Earl of Gosford, Landlord

p. 117 LAND LAWS-Court valuers-Consideration of evidence as to principles of valuation-Alleged bias and prejudice. O'Regan v. Trench p. 118 LAND LAWS-Redemption of Rent (Ir) Act, 1891Proceeding for redemption—" Bona fide occupation Sub-lettings-Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1896, s. 7, Part I., and 8 48, sub-s. (1), s. 50, sub-s. (3) and (4) Part VI. Cowell, Lessor, v. Buchanan, Lessee P. 119 LAND PURCHASE-Estate purchased by the Congested Districts Board-Re-sale to tenants-Reservation of game -Dispensing with inspection-Amount of guarantee. The Trustees of the Congested Districts Board (formerly the Estate of Viscount Dillon) p. 122

IN THE IRISH LAW TIMES AND SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NEGLIGENCE - Road contractors - Repair of roads. Hodgins v. Kirwan P. 243

ERRATA. In last week's leading article the date of the marriage settlement in Dodington's case is given as 1891; it should be 1871. And in the reference to s. 5 (2) of the Finance Act, at the conclusion of the dictum of Rigby, L.J., read "not" after "shall."-ED.

THE POSITION OF MONEY-LENDERS AND THE MONEY-LENDERS' ACT, 1900.

IN connection with our leader dealing with the recent Money-Lending Act, 1900, ante, p. 89, we would call attention to the remarks of Mr. Justice Barton in the recent case of Levin v. Power, heard on the 20th April, 1901, in which the plaintiff, trading as James Gardiner, sued the defendant for £198 17s., the amount of two promissory notes and interest. The defendant denied the signing of the notes, and pleaded, further, that he had been induced to borrow the money sued for by the representation that he was dealing with one James Gardiner as true owner of the money, while in fact the true owner of the money was Joseph Levin, a well-known money-lender. further pleaded that so soon as he discovered this fact he repudiated the contract, and he now lodged £45 in Court as sufficient to satisfy plaintiff's claim. This defence of misrepresentation was inserted in accordance with the decision in the recent English case of Gordon v. Street (1899), 2 Q. B. 641, in which the Court of Appeal held that, where it was established that the plaintiff intentionally concealed his identity in order fraudulently to induce the defendant to borrow money from him, this was a good defence to an action on the notes, &c., given by the defendant.

He

Upon the hearing of the case Mr. Justice Barton, in his summing up, gave an interesting review of the law on this subject. He said the problem of the manner in which the law was to deal with moneylending and money-lenders was one of the most difficult that had to be approached in any country. In their own country the law had swayed from one extreme to another in the matter. The law at first was that Christians could not lend money to each other, and Jews had a monopoly of money-lending. Then the law went to an opposite extreme, and all the Jews were banished. Then the Jews were recalled, and for several hundred years there were legalised rates of interest-10, 5, or 8 per cent. That looked like common sense. Then came a number of philosophers-such as Adam Smith and Benthamwho knew a great deal about abstract science, but nothing about human nature, and their doctrine was that people should be left to themselves to do as they liked as regarded interest when borrowing money. The result of that had been that for fifty years there had been this scandal of money-lenders lending money under aliases; and it became so notorious that three years ago, in 1897, the case of Isaac Gordon led to the sitting of a Commission, and then in last year to the passing of an Act of Parliament making it a misdemeanour punishable by two years' imprisonment for any man to do what the plaintiff Levin did in the

present casee-namely, to advertise the lending of money under aliases. That Act, however, did not apply to the present case, because the facts on which it depended occurred before the passing of the Act, and what they were now doing was sweeping away the filth of the old system that remained from before the alteration of the law. Dealing with the facts of the case, his Lordship said the plaintiff Levin had admitted that he was the agent of Isaac Gordon, but he said he did not think he was the agent before the Master of the Rolls decided to that effect; and Levin in the present case was only a witness, because the real plaintiff was Mr. Killingley, the eminent accountant, who was realising the estate of the late Isaac Gordon, to which Gordon's brother had succeeded. Levin had stated that he had been five years with Gordon, and that the latter never came to Ireland, and he further said that all the money in the business came from London. When asked about the advertisement, which stated that a private capitalist was the lender of the money, he threw up his head and laughed, and said-" Do you think any advertisement states the actual thing?" The counsel who was examining him said "No," and he said "Neither do I." In other words, he meant to convey that it was fair play in business to put any lie into an advertisement. He (Mr. Justice Barton) did not think the jury would be of that opinion. Mr. Campbell had been very humorous on the subject, and had urged that it was only the same thing as the statement in the advertisement about Beecham's Pills that they were "worth a guinea a box." But that was only a statement of opinion without any representation as to matter of fact. If the advertisements about pills contained a false statement of facts the advertiser could be made answerable in Court. When the defendant was written to by Mr. Killingley, his reply was that he was not aware that he owed any money to the estate of Gordon, and Mr. Killingley's answer to that was that "Gardiner," one of the trading names, with whom the defendant had been dealing, was the same as Gordon.

His Lordship left the following questions to the jury-(1) Did the plaintiff intentionally conceal from the defendant that he was the agent of Isaac Gordon to induce the defendant to borrow money from him as a person lending on his own account as a private capitalist? (2) Did the plaintiff do so fraudulently? (3) Was the defendant thereby induced to borrow, in April, 1898, £100, and to sign a promissory note for £115, which loan and note are represented by the renewal note for £115 of Jan. 14, 1900, and to sign the various renewals of the said note from April, 1898, to Jan. 14, 1900, and to borrow on Feb. 20, 1900, £50, and sign the instalment note for £80 of that date? (4) Did the defendant contract with the plaintiff believing him to be a private capitalist trading on his own account? (5) Did the defendant repudiate the contract within a reasonable time after he discovered that the plaintiff was the agent of Isaac Gordon? (6) Was the £15 interest which fell due on July, 1899, received in the plaintiff's office, and was it lost or stolen there? And (7)

Was it agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant was to bear all or any part of the loss of that £15? The jury answered all these questions in the affirmative except the last one, which they answered in the negative, and judgment was entered for the defendant.

Now, in England the Act of 1900 has already been the subject of decision in Wilton v. Osborne, 17 Times L. R. 431, and in view of the above decision it is interesting to note the decision in that case. In that case the defendant had obtained from the plaintiffs a loan of £40, and had given them a promissory note, which had been renewed 14 times, each renewal costing £6. The defendant being then desirous of paying off the capital, the plaintiffs asked a promissory note for £60, payable in four instalments of £15 each, the total sum to be payable at once on failure to pay any instalment. Eventually the defendant gave a promissory note for £56, payable in quarterly instalments of £14, on the above terms. The first instalment had not been paid, so the whole sum became payable, the interest working out at 160 per cent. The action was brought on this note. Now, it will be remembered that s. 1 (1) of the recent Act provides that where the Court is satisfied that the interest charged in respect of the sum lent is excessive, or that the amounts charged for expenses, fines, &c., are excessive, and that the transaction is harsh or unconscionable, or is otherwise such that a Court of Equity would give relief, the Court may re-open the transaction, and Ridley, J. (by whom this case was tried), having stated that in his opinion this transaction was harsh and unconscionable and the interest excessive, having regard to the circumstances, continued "It is now contended that, under the first section of the Money-lenders' Act, 1900, the Court has power to re-open the transaction and order an account to be taken, or in some other way grant relief to the defendant, and as the point is, I believe, a new one, I took time to consider my decision. It appears to me established by a series of decisions that a Court of Equity will not grant relief in such cases merely because the charges or interest are excessive. Every case has, indeed, to be judged by its own circumstances; but unless the borrower be of the class known as expectant heirs (which requires distinctive consideration), the rule is that, assuming him to be of full capacity, relief will not be granted unless it can be shown that he has been overreached, tricked, or deceived, and that the money-lender has taken an unfair and undue advantage of his weakness and necessities. The general rule is that neither excess of interest nor exorbitance of charge will suffice unless the element of unfair dealing is found to have existed." Having considered Nevill v. Snelling, 15 C. D. 679; Allcard v. Skinner, 36 C. D. 145; Lord Aylesford v. Morris, L. R. 8 Ch. 491, the learned Judge continued "Thus it seems clear to me that this case is not one in which a Court of Equity would have interfered. The defendant was not overreached, nor was advantage taken of his necessities. exercised his own volition and made terms. The bargain was improvident and foolish, but no pressure

He