§ DR. TANNER (Cork, Co., Mid)I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Messrs. Roche and Butler, Resident Magistrates, adjourned the Court in the case of "the Crown v. Rye" at Crookstown, against the repeatedly expressed wish of three Local Justices, including Mr. Harold; whether the report is true that the adjournment was moved in order to secure the attendance of Corcoran, the man who was wounded, and that after the adjournment one of the Resident Magistrates proceeded to Corcoran's house and succeeded, without much difficulty, in bringing him into Court, when he swore that Rye fired twice wilfully at him; whether it has been now proved that District Inspector St. George had not summoned Corcoran to attend as a witness in this case, and did not, as alleged, procure a car to convey the wounded man to Court, a distance of three miles; and whether any notice will be taken of the delay to justice in this case?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am informed that it is the case that the Court was adjourned for a short time, with the object and with the result indicated in the second paragraph of the question, 547 but that it is not the case that the adjournment was against the wishes of the Local Justices present, including the gentleman named. Corcoran was not summoned, he having been bound by recognizances to attend. There was no delay of justice beyond the interruption occasioned by Corcoran's reluctance to attend.
§ DR. TANNERIs it not the fact that Mr. Harold did not attend on the last occasion in consequence of being in the employment of Captain Rye?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have no information on that point.
§ DR. TANNERI beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter, and also to a breach of privilege of this House, which has occurred in connection with it.