§ MR. NOLAN (Louth, N.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the case of' Kearneyv. Supple," listed for hearing at the Louth Assizes opened at Dundalk on the 6th July; if the defendant "Supple" in this case is Mr. Supple, District Inspector of Constabulary, Dundalk, and the plaintiff a bread van driver in that town; if the cause of action was for assault, battery, and imprisonment; if the defendant, in an affidavit read in open Court before Baron Dowse and Judge Andrews in Dundalk on 10th February last, swore that he did not commit any assault on plaintiff; if the plaintiff, in reply, swore that defendant's statement was absolutely false; if it is true that, in face of his own affidavit and that of plaintiff, the defendant has since settled the case out of Court by paying, or undertaking to pay, the plaintiff the sum of £20 and all costs; and, if the right hon. Gentleman will bring the matter under the notice of the Inspector General of Constabulary?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)(who replied) said, Mr. Supple was District Inspector of Constabulary in Dundalk, and the plaintiff was a bread van driver in that town. The action was for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, arising out of an occurrence about six months ago. The defendant did swear that no assault was committed, and the plaintiff swore the contrary. Mr. Supple had settled the case out of Court by the payment of £20 and costs. He stated one of his witnesses was in India, and he was advised to settle the case; moreover, he explained that the action arose out of a practical joke. The Inspector General of Constabulary had the case before him, and he had already severely admonished. Mr. Supple, and had cautioned him against a repetition of his conduct.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said, he desired very much to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether it was a fact that Mr. Supple seized this unfortunate man in his own house, and called in two men to hold him down while he proceeded, against his earnest remonstrance, to clip his board off, and that Mr. Supple declared that the man's beard was overgrown, and he was determined not to tolerate it any longer? He wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also, whether the learned Judges who heard the motion in the case did not condemn, in the strongest manner, the action of the District Inspector of Constabulary; and, finally, he wished to put this question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—whether a gentleman who was capable of such conduct as this was considered to be a fit man to be at the Read of the police, and in charge of a district?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had already intimated that the Inspector General of Constabulary had severely admonished Mr. Supple after having gone carefully into the ease; and he presumed that he considered that a severe reprimand and caution was sufficient. So far as the actual facts of the case went, he believed that Mr. Supple stated that the man's board was in a very ragged and unkempt condition. He did not in the least exonerate Mr. Supple from serious blame in the matter.
§ MR. DILLONgave Notice that on the Estimates he would call attention to this preceding on the part of Mr. Supple. 921 and many other proceedings of a similar character.