§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a report in the Cromer and North Walsham Post of the 31st January last, of the prosecution before the Hon. H. Harbord and Mr. J. Shepheard of one William Lay-cock, on a charge of poaching in a plantation belonging to Lord Suffield at North Walsham, from which it appears that evidence was given by two witnesses proving that Laycock was not at the time alleged in the plantation, and that the Bench found the prisoner guilty, and inflicted a fine of £10 and £1 5s. costs; can he explain why, although the prisoner expressed his unwillingness to have the case settled by the Bench, and asked for a remand in order to bring further evidence to prove his innocence, the Bench refused his application; whether he is aware that there has been of late a considerable difficulty in getting the necessary quorum of Magistrates on the North Walsham Bench, resulting in delay and inconvenience to suitors and others concerned; and whether he will interfere to obtain the remission of the heavy fine inflicted upon Laycock?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have obtained a Report from the Justices on this case. Two witnesses were called to prove an alibi, but the Justices considered their evidence not inconsistent with the presence of the man in the plantation at the time of the offence. The defendant expressed no unwillingness to have the 679 case settled by the Bench. After it had been decided he asked for an adjournment; but, according to the law, it was not then possible to grant it. I am informed that, as a rule, there has been no difficulty in obtaining a quorum of Justices at these Sessions. On two recent occasions, owing to the illness of two of the Justices and the absence of another, a delay of a few minutes occurred; but no public inconvenience has resulted. The case seems to me to have been clearly proved; and I cannot advise any interference with the sentence.