§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen a report of the proceedings before Mr. Curran, R.M. in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 25th and 26th ultimo, in which a cabewner named Mekins charged Police Constables 70 B and 128 B with tippling whilst on duty in Harcourt Street on the 24th July; whether Mekins complained that, to shield themselves, they arrested him for drunkenness and abusive language; whether the Constables admitted, on oath, having spoken to Mekins a short time previously, and saying nothing about drink; if he is aware Constable 128 B swore he was on special duty for Mr. Curran on the day in question, and admitted drinking whisky in Mekins' presence; if it is the fact that four respectable witnesses swore Mekins was perfectly sober when arrested; whether, notwithstanding, Mr. Curran convicted Mekins, marking his licence for being drunk, and fining him 10s. for abusive language, and refused to grant him the right of appeal, though pressed by counsel to do so; if it is the case that Mekins was imprisoned in the cells underneath the Court, by orders of the Police, until fine was paid, although no imprisonment was imposed as an alternative of non-payment; and, whether any inquiry into the conduct of the Police has been held or will be granted?
§ MR. TREVELYANThe case was brought by the police against a cabdriver named Mekins, who was charged with being drunk and using abusive language. The use of abusive language was not denied, and the magistrate believed on the evidence that the drunkenness was proved, and that the suggestion made for the defence, that the constables arrested Mekins to screen themselves from a charge of tippling, was not well founded. The accused was cautioned for the drunkenness, and fined 10s. for the abusive language. An increase of the penalty would 'not have given him a right of appeal. After the conviction the defendant was removed to the cells for about two minutes until the fine was paid. The suggestion that one of the constables was on special duty for Mr. Curran is not correct. He had been sent on the 1620 most ordinary and commonplace duty—namely, to notice a witness for a Police Court case the next day. It is the fact that the two constables had gone to a refreshment bar before the arrest was made, and had taken a glass of whisky each. Their case has already been before the Commissioner, who fined them for this breach of discipline. I see no ground for further inquiry.