§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with respect to the case of District Inspector Carter and Constable John Loohig, both of Tipperary, in which a Coroner's jury found a verdict against them for the shooting of a boy named Stephen Heffernan, on the 5th September, 1889; and whether the inquisition has been quashed, or a nolle prosequi entered to it; and, if not, do the Government intend to prosecute on this inquisition?
§ MR. MADDENI stated fully why I saw no reason to take further proceedings in reply to a question put by the hon. Member on the 4th December last, and I now beg to refer him to the answer which I gave on that occasion. With regard to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that the action referred to was decided not on a technical point, but on a substantial issue. I cannot accept the view of the verdict of the jury put forth in the fourth paragraph of the question having regard to the findings to which they in the first instance agreed, and no reason why the Government should take the very exceptional course suggested in the latter part of the question.
§ DR. TANNERDid not Inspector Carter frequently admit that the men 484 fired without orders and killed this man. Is he not to be held responsible?
§ MR. MADDENI have answered questions relating to this already, and must refer the hon. Member to the answers given in December.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNORI beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen a report of the case, Johannah Heffernan against John Collis Carter, District Inspector, and Constable Loohig, tried before Mr. Justice Holmes and a special jury of the City of Dublin, on the 22nd, 24th, 25th, and 26th days of November, in which the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on the principal issue put before them, namely—
That the firing of the shot was not necessary for the self-defence of Carter and his policemen while engaged in the performance of the duty aforesaid;whether he is aware that a verdict was given for the defendants on a technical point, namely, that at the time of the boy's death there was not a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit to his mother, within the meaning of Lord Campbell's Act; whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Holmes, who tried the case, declared in his Charge to the jury that it raised a most grave and important issue, and that the jury who tried the case was a special jury of the City of Dublin, consisting of men of various political opinions; whether, under this verdict, the entire cost of the case falls upon the mother of the deceased, although it is practically a verdict of manslaughter against the police; and whether, since the costs amount to £285 2s. 9d., the Government will save this poor woman from ruin by defraying the costs?
§ MR. MADDENThe answer I gave to the last question applies to this.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORIs it the intention of the Government to enter a nolle prosequi in this case?
§ MR. MADDENThat course will not be taken. The case was laid before a Bench of Magistrates, who refused an information.
§ DR. TANNERIs Carter to be promoted for the murder of this boy?
MR. MAC NEILLInasmuch as this case resulted in loss of life, I must ask a further question as to the Bench of Magistrates who refused the information. Was it the ordinary Bench, or one 485 exclusively composed of Resident Magistrates selected for the purpose? Was not the brother of one of the Magistrates, within two days after the decision was given, made a Deputy Lieutenant of the County of Dublin?
§ MR. MADDENIt was an ordinary Petty Sessions Bench. If the local Magistrates do not attend, the Government cannot be held responsible.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORWhat were the issues found by the jury? Was it not that the firing of the shot was not necessary for the self-defence of the police while engaged in the execution of their duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Government not to allow this woman to be mulct in the police costs?
§ MR. MADDENThe issues submitted to the jury were—1st, as to whether it was the duty of the police to disperse the crowd; and, secondly, was the performance of that duty accompanied by personal danger, which the Judge in his Charge explained to mean danger to life or risk of serious injury. The jury without difficulty found both these issues in favour of the defendant—they agreed it was the duty of the police to disperse the crowd, and that there was personal danger. They stated, however, they could not agree as to the remaining issues, which were—was the firing necessary in self-defence, and had the plaintiffs any pecuniary interest in the life of the deceased? They asked the Judge, could they find a verdict on one conditional on the other? He told them no such verdict would stand, and they then found for the plaintiff on the self-defence issue, and for the defendants on the issue as to pecuniary benefit. How they could reconcile their finding on the self-defence issue with the finding as to the duty of the police to disperse the crowd I cannot imagine, as they admitted the duty was attended with personal danger.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI ask the Government whether, in any single instance of the finding by a Coroner's Jury of a verdict of wilful murder, they have allowed it to stand against the person concerned without making some effort to set it aside. Is this to be the only case in which no such effort is to be made?
§ MR. MADDENThere have, especially under previous Governments, been many verdicts of wilful murder in which no step whatever has been taken by the Government of the day. In this case the Government laid it before a Bench of Magistrates, who refused an information and, in my opinion, that decision was amply justified by the evidence in the civil action.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORThere are two points on which I wish to be satisfied. Was not the jury composed almost entirely of gentlemen of the right hon. Gentleman's way of thinking, there being very few Catholics among them, and will the Government see that the woman is not mulct in these heavy costs?
§ MR. MADDENAs to the constitution of the jury I have no information. Under the circumstances, the Government cannot undertake to pay the plaintiff's costs.