The Gazette 1910-11

[MAY, 1910

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland,

110

COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND). (Before Vaughan Williams and Fletcher Moulton, L.JJ.) Jones v. Stott and Others. April 5, 1910. Costs Appeal and Cross- Appeal R.S.C., Iviii., 6. 1, (Rules of Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland, Order, Iviii., 6, 7). The plaintiffs sued the defendants, and the trial ended in judgment being entered for the defendants without costs. Both parties appealed, but the defendants set down their appeal (which was merely for costs of the action) first. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal, which raised the substantial issue as at the trial, came on by way of cross-appeal. On the hearing of the appeals, both were dismissed with costs. Held, that in taxing the costs the appeal and cross-appeal should be treated by the taxing master as two separate appeals. Appeal by the plaintiff on a question of taxation arising out of an Order made by the Court of Appeal in an action decided last Sittings. The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment. Vaughan Williams, L.J. I do not think that in this case we have anything further to do than to consider the terms of the order which was made in this Court. The part of the order which deals with costs is as follows : " Upon hearing Mr. Scott Fox, for the defendant, and Mr. Norman Craig, for the plaintiff, on the notice of motion, dated 2(ith day of February, 1909, given on behalf of the defendants on appeal from so much of the judgment of A. T. Lawrence, J., given on the trial of this action before him at York on the 15th day of January, 1909, as directs that the defendants shall have no costs, and as deprives them of their costs of the action, that such part of the said judgment as directs as aforesaid might be reversed and set aside, and that the judgment in the said action might be entered for the defendants with costs. And upon hearing the same Counsel on the cross-notice, dated the 19th day of April, 1909, given on behalf of the plaintiff of his intention to contend that the said judgment should be reversed or varied in so far as it adjudges that judgment be entered for the defendant without costs." That cross-notice went to the whole of the plaintiff's

Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 , (see s. 3 (1) of the Labourers (Ir.) Act, 1896), but not so as to exclude the Railways Act (Ir.), 1851. The preamble of that Act shows that the tenure according to the law of Ireland is to be rec"gnised in proceedings under it. It says : " Whereas, on account of circumstances connected with the tenure of land in Ireland, the provision of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are found to be unsuited to the existing condition of that country, &c., &c., be it therefore enacted." Owners, lessees and occupiers, therefore, in s. 4 of that Act mean owners: lessees and occupiers according to the law of Ireland ; and a judicial tenant, according to the law of Ireland, is a lessee both by reason of holding from year to year, which contract need not be in writing under s. 4 of Deasy's Act, and by virtue of the order of the Land Commission, which is a contract of tenancy reduced to writing, and enforced on both parties to it by statute (R. Wright v. Chairman and Justices of Co. Cork, 40 Ir. L.T.R., 103 (1906) ; 2 Ir. R. 349.) The same principle applies to the rules made under the Acts. Wylie, for the Stranorlar District Council. Owner or lessee means a person who can give a title to something more than the occupation interest, and all through the Acts the words are used in this sense. Owner or lessee really means a person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts : (see s. 11 (1) of the Labourers (Ir.) Act, 1906), and in this connection lessee means a person holding under a long lease. Tenants from year to year and judicial tenants have always been treated as occupiers, and come under sub- rule (9). Palles, C.B. I cannot follow the argument that the word " lessee " in this order is to have any other meaning than that usually attached to it. Apart from the Labourers Acts and the Lands Clauses Acts, a judicial tenant is certainly a lessee, and I cannot see why any other construction should apply when these Acts (or rules made in pursuance of them) are under consideration, and I think the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the amount claimed. (Reported 7mA Law Times Reports, Vol. xliv, p. 95).