The Irish Reports; Containing Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Justice, the Court of Bankruptcy, in Ireland, and the Irish Land Commission Volume . 2 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt: ...occupied by the said tenant-until some time hefore the commencement of the statutory qualifying period on the 20th July, 1906, as the dwelling-house of the farm. Some time before the said date the said John Kerlin let to his son, the claimant, a part of the said dwelling-house; and the claimant occupied the said part as tenant to his father during the qualifying period, the said dwelling-houses (formerly one) being occupied by the father and son respectively as two distinct and separate dwelling-houses. There was uo other dwellinghouse upon the farm, and the claimant earned his living on the farm as a labourer to his father, the said John Kerlin, and paid him weekly rent as tenant of that part of the dwelling-house, in which he, the claimant, separately lived. The landlord of the said holding had not consented in writing to the sub-letting by the tenant to the claimant. It was contended on behalf of the objector that the letting to the claimant was consequently void under sect. 2 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and that the claimant was not entitled to the franchise. The Revising Barrister held as a fact that, apart from the effect of the above objection, the claimant had in every respect proved his claim as an inhabitant oocupier; and as to the objection, he held that the facts brought the case within the principle of the decision of Glenn v. Brennan (1) as contrasted with Riddall v. Mullan (2), and admitted the claim of the said George Kerlin. John Gordon, K.C., and Babington, for the appellant: --Under sect. 2 of the Land Law Act of 1881, all sub-lettings of holdings, to which the Aot applies, without the consent of the landlord in writing, are absolutely void: Meares v. Redmond (3). The idea seems to have prevailed at one time..