Democratic Sentinel, Volume 5, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 November 1881 — THE LAND COURT. [ARTICLE]

THE LAND COURT.

Consternation Among the Irish Landlords Over Its Verdicts. Dublin, Nov. 7. The Irish Land Court has given during the past week unequivocal indications of the spirit in which it intends to administer the Land act. Justice O'Hagan’s definition es a fair rent is such a rent as will enable the tenant to live and thrive, Thia was laid down at the opening of the court, a fortnight ago, and has since been applied by the Assistant Commissioners at Belfast with startling results to the rents on the Crawford estate, and on the corn-money tenant estate of Dundonald, both of which may be called rackrented. In both the rent was reduced an average of one-third all round. The Commissioners expressly said that neither estate had been managed with the liberality expected or usual with Irish landlords; hence the reduction is greater than the probable average. But these cases afford an example of what will happen to rack-rented estates generally. In both cases the Commissioners personally examined minutely the properties. There is no reason to suppose that their decision will be reversed if appealed from, nor is an appeal expected. The decision of the same Commission respecting improvements is regarded as still more formidable to the landlords. It substantially declares that improvements shall be presumed to have been made by the tenant unless the landlord can prove the contrary. This reverses completely the presumption suppoeod to have been created by the act, and shifts the burden of proof to the landlord, disregarding even express contracts between landlord and tenant, under which the improvements became the landlord’s. The result is that, in fixing a judicial rent, such improvements, which in many cases cover a large portion of the value of the property, will be considered as forming no part of the capital on which the landlord is entitled to receive rent. The decision has produced something like consternation among certain classesof landlords, and will certainly be appbaled from, though every act and yord yet proceeding fro© the

Land Court indicates that U la disposed to hold to this sweeping principle. The effect is an enormous increase in the busineßS of the court, which, before these decisions, had shown signs of becoming unmanageable. Applications pour in by the thousand. League organs are beginning to claim this a* ’ the result of their new policy. Being unable to prevent tenants from resorting to the court, they now encourage litigation with the view of creating a complete Hock. The truth is, the farmers are acting foi themselves, having understood from Justice O’Hagan’s opening address that the court wa! to be a Tenants' Court. From recent appearances the court will be called on to readjust the whole rental of Ireland. When, through a slip of the tongue, Mr. Smith, Registrar of the Land Court, proclaimed, on Oct. 19, that “the Court ol the Land League” was open, he unwittingly told the truth. Mr. Justice O’Hagan anc bis colleagues did not hesitate, at the opening day, to declare, almost in so manj words, that they intended to interpret th< Land act and to execute it solely in the interests of the tenant applicants, and the SubCommissioners are religiously living up to that profession. The landlords expected seven treatment, but they did not count on being absolutely garroted. Mr. Parnell made a greal point against the Government by declaring that who had beer evicted during the fierce agitation in the spring would lose the benefits of the act. But Mr. Justice O’Hagan has ruled that all tenants ejected within six months before Aug. 22 (the day the Land bill became a law) are entitled to its advantages ; and, furthermore, that when a reduction of rent is ordered it shall apply to all sales which have occurred since Aug’ 22. This sweeping interpretation of the foggy fiftieth and sixtieth sections of the act alarmed the landlords, and I believe some of them resolved on consulting eminent lawyers in Ireland and England, with the view of testing it* soundness. Rut they were told what they ought to have known—that the act makes the Land Commission a court of final jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal against its decisions, not even to the House of Lords.