HC Deb 27 November 1882 vol 275 cc123-4
MR. TOTTENHAM

gave Notice, in reference to the answer of the Attorney General for Ireland to Questions 17 and 18, that he would on Thursday ask the right hon. and learned Gentlemen, Whe- ther, in the cases therein referred to, he had not considered the matters too serious to be dealt with otherwise than by a jury, although the magistrates had unanimously agreed to dismiss the charge?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

gave Notice that on Thursday, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, he should inform him that, on the occasion to which he referred, the magistrates had not unanimously agreed to dismiss the charge.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked whether the Attorney General for Ireland adhered to his statement that it was the duty of the Irish Sessions Court to return the case for trial, though they thought there was no case?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that he did not say that, or anything like it.

MR. J. LOWTHER

begged the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. He was understood to say that the duties of the Sessional Court were analogous to those of the Grand Jury.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that he did not mention the words "Grand Jury." What he said was that there was some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) as to receiving and dismissing an information and investigating and dismissing a charge. The latter was a final adjudication, subject, in certain cases, to appeal, while the former left it open to lay a fresh information.

MR. J. LOWTHER

admitted that that was quite a different question. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that if the Sessions Court in Ireland found a primâ facie case to prosecute it was their duty to send it for prosecution.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that it was not the duty of the magistrates, when an application was made for an information, to decide between conflicting evidence; but if there was a proper case for investigation it was their duty to send it before a jury.