The Gazette 1908-9

[MAR., 1909

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

98

because the Solicitor-General admitted that if certiorari lay he could not support the order im peached ; but he said that on account of the reasons given by the Judges ofthe King's Bench Division, and the dicta and doubts appearing in the judgments, the Local Government Board was forced to obtain the opinion of this Court on the construction of the section, and ask for its guidance in acting under the section. I think he is entitled to obtain our opinion for the guidance of this great public body, and he contended, and I think rightly, that if the reasons for the judgments below remained un challenged, the 3ist sect, would be rendered wholly inoperative. The important question is that which the Local Government Board has brought this appeal for the purpose of having decided—the true construction of sect. 31 of the Labourers Act, 1906. Does it apply to the costs of owners of land whose lands are being compulsorily taken ? Does it enable the Local Government Board to frame a scale of costs applicable to owners' costs ? And does it enable the Local Government Board to appoint an independent authority to tax those costs, having regard to the scale which they may frame, the amount of which, when measured, the Board will certify for the payment of by the local authority ? The erection of labourers' cottages and acquisition of sites for them has, since 188 3, been the object and subject of numerous legislative provisions ending with the Labourers Act of 1906. There are two stages quite distinct dealt with by the code—one the obtaining of the power to acquire the sites, and the other the acquisition of sites from the owners when the power had been obtained. The first of these processes underwent many changes in the course of simplification and struggle for economy. Beginning with what was equivalent to an Act of Parliament, it finally, by the provisions of sect. 6 of the Act of 1906, only needs now an order of confirmation by the Local Government Board after inquiry had, in order to obtain the effect of an Act of Parliament. The costs incident to this first stage were considered burdensome, and the lessening of them was provided for by sect. 12 of the Act of 1885, which enacts : [His Lordship read sub- sects. 6 and 7.] „. Sub-s. 7 is carried out by an Order in Council of 29th January, 1897, which provides:—"If the Lord Lieutenant in Council order costs to be paid by any party, a sum may be fixed by such order as and for the said costs, or such

accompanying memorandum, a statement of the matters which your Council desire to discuss with him. The Chief Secre tary directs me to say, in reply, that he will give full consideration to the subject of the memorandum, and will then cause a further communication to be addressed to you with reference to the proposed deputation. " I am, Sir, " Your obedient servant, " C. T. BEARD. " The Secretary, " Incorporated Law Society of Ireland." Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors. i^Nofes ofdecisions, ivhetherin reported or unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors are invited from Members.} COURT OF APPEAL. (Before Sir Samuel Walker, Bart., C. ; Palles, C.B.; FitzGibbon and Holmes, L.JJ.) The King (Moivbray and Stourlon) v. The Local Government Boardfor Ireland. January 20, 21, 27, 1909— Local Government— Labourers Acts—Costs—Taxation of-—Fixing of Fees. APPEAL by the Local Government Board against Order of King's Bench Division, dated i6th November, 1908, making absolute a conditional order for a writ of certiorari quashing a certi ficate given by the Local Government Board under Rule 55 of tne Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1906, made under section 31 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. Order appealed against confirmed. The facts are fully stated in report of pro ceedings before the King's Bench Division, contained in December, 1908, number of GAZETTE. THE LORD CHANCELLOR :— There were three questions argued in this case, (i) Whether certiorari lay to bring up and quash the order of the Local Government Board, which certified an amount of ^4 11 s. ^d. as the sum payable for the costs of the owner, but this question really comes in more appro priately last in order. The great question is the true construction of the 3ist sect, of the Labourers Act, and what might be done under it. The question whether the section has been carried out law fully in this case hardly requires discussion, containing