Web Analytics
Legal Battle Unfolds Over Valuable Irish Farm - Molony v. Molony Takes Center Stage in Chancery Division |

Legal Battle Unfolds Over Valuable Irish Farm – Molony v. Molony Takes Center Stage in Chancery Division

In a dramatic legal confrontation at the Chancery Division today, the Master of the Rolls presided over the case of Molony v. Molony. The courtroom witnessed intense arguments as Mr Carrigan, K.C., accompanied by Mr P. Kelly, representing the defendant, Daniel Molony, sought an order to increase the security for costs of the action. The legal battle revolves around a valuable farm in Coologue, Co. Limerick, with an annual income of £220, and raises complex questions of trust and family arrangements.

The plaintiff, Sarah Mary Molony, contends that Daniel Molony holds the farm in trust for her, a claim vehemently denied by the defendant. Daniel Molony asserts that he acquired the farm for himself and not as a trustee for his relative. Adding a layer of complexity to the case, it was revealed that Daniel Molony had faced alleged intimidation and boycotts by members of the United Irish League, and had even received compensation for damages related to the malicious burning of a portion of the farm.

The plaintiff further alleges that the farm originally belonged to her mother and was entrusted to Daniel Molony under a family arrangement. She claims that after reaching the age of twenty-one, she was offered £800 in settlement of her rights to the farm, an offer she refused. The legal dispute takes a twist with the assertion that the defendant had not only rejected this offer but also faced allegations before the Irish League in connection with the matter.

The Master of the Rolls addressed the issue of security for costs, emphasizing that the key question for trial would be whether the defendant held the farm as a trustee for the plaintiff. He dismissed the notion of altering the amount of security, stating that it would not be an expensive trial and questioning the necessity of the proposed adjustments. Additionally, concerns were raised about the suitability of Mrs. Catherine McInerney as surety, citing a previous return of nulla bona, which suggested an inability to meet financial obligations.

During the proceedings, it was disclosed that Mrs. McInerney, purportedly acting as a surety, had not been satisfactory due to her financial circumstances, despite owning £700 in Great Southern and Western Railway stock. The Master of the Rolls ultimately ruled that the plaintiff, Sarah Mary Molony, should lodge the security bond, favouring a more secure arrangement for the proceedings.

Evening Herald (Dublin) – Monday 30 March 1914

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments