THE WORK OF THE LAND COURT.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IX, Issue 460, 3 February 1882, Page 21

THE WORK OF THE LAND COURT.

The Land Court is composed as follows : — There is, first the Chief Commission, called by common consent the Land Court, sitting in Dublin, and consisting of three gentlemen, Mr. O'Sagan, Mr. Litton, and Mr. Vernon, the two former being lawyers and the last a land agent. To this Court every tenant and landlord must apply who desires his case to be heard. The Court having heard the claims of the tenant or landlord, and having acknowledged their legal right to a hearing, the case is referred to one of the lower commissions.

There are four of these inferior commissions, each also consisting of three members.

One important result of the examination thus far is the complete discrediting of the valuators employed by them to survey and revalue the land for the purpose of raising the rent. Professor Baldwin, who was familiar with the untrustworthiness of this class of testimony, brought out in severe cross-examination the loose manner in which valuations are made, and revealed how really hollow are the pretensions of the men whom land agents hire to raise the valuation whenever the land* lord requires an increased rental. At Castleblayney their mercenarycharacter was proved with overwhelming force. Vincent Smith, % venerable-looking mau, with silver hair and kindly eyes, has long been considered a clever, honest valuator, one of the most respectable men in his* profession, who has valued the estates of many land* owners. He was called by MoAtavey's counsel to prove that he bad four days before surveyed and valued the plaintiff's holding and thought it worth no more than 10s. 6d. per acre. But in crossexamination the landlord's council burst a bomb at Smith's feet r He produced a valuation made, written and signed by the witness in 1876 with regard to the same holding in which Smith then estimated the value at over sixteen shillings an acre. This naturally created a sensation. This respectable valuator had valued the land to suit his customer— long measure for the landlord, short for the tenant. He admitted the inconsistency, but explained that the first valuation was made by order of the land agent. The admission that he was dishonest enough to make a false valuation to order was even more damaging, and he left tbe witness box a ruined man.

The expense of the Land Act thus far is enormous. Six hundred thousand pounds, or 3,000,000 dols., it is said, is the sum already ex* pended. It is absolutely necessary for both tenant and landlord to engage solicitors to argue the cases, and this expense is not trivial, as everyone may testify who has had anything to do with the honoured profession of the law. The bill of McAtavey, the first tenant who benefited under the Act, was £25. The reduction in his rent amounted to £2 15s. a year, so that his costs swallowed up his benefits for nine out of the fifteen years for which his new rent is fixed.