MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following statements published in the Belfast news- 1968 papers, in reference to a case tried at the recent Monaghan Assizes:—
On the 31st August Mr. William Ancketill was driving about the hour of midnight through the village of Emyvale, county Monaghan, when some dogs aroused by the noise of his gig barked at it, and, as he states, frightened the horse. He thereupon pulled up, drove to the police barrack, and induced one of the police to accompany him in a search for dogs in the houses of the sleeping villagers. Neither he nor the constable knew the dogs which had barked, but they went to the houses of people who were known to own dogs. They went to the house of Widow Armstrong, and one of the inmates was roused out of bed. In reply to inquiries, the man stated that Mrs. Armstrong had a dog, and that the dog was in one of the outhouses. Mr. Ancketill requested the servant to bring out the dog that he might see him. The dog—a valuable dog—and one to which Widow Armstrong's family were greatly attached, was brought out. Ancketill caught up the unsuspecting creature in his arms, and with a pocket-knife severed the throat from ear to ear. The police constable was present when this was done. They discovered another dog which belonged to a car driver named Peter M' Anally. Ancketill seized him and cut his throat;whether Mr. Ancketill has not been convicted, at the suit of Mrs. Armstrong, for unlawful killing of the dog, the county chairman severely commenting on Ancketill's brutal conduct, and whether that conviction has not been confirmed by the going Judge of Assize; and, whether the Mr. Ancketill here referred to is a Magistrate and Deputy Lieutenant of the county Monaghan, and whether the Government consider him worthy to hold any longer Her Majesty's commission of the peace?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS- BEACHMr. Speaker, my attention was first called to this statement, which appears to be taken from an article in The Belfast Morning News, by the prominence given to it by the Notice of the hon. Member for Louth. I believe it is incorrect in part and generally much exaggerated. The circumstances, so far as I have been able to learn them, were these: — Mr. Ancketill was driving through a village in county Monaghan late at night, when his horse was frightened by dogs and ran away, kicking the carriage, which was much injured. Hearing the noise, the police came to his assistance; but he, foolishly and improperly, being no doubt much aggravated by what had happened, killed two of the dogs which appeared to have been the transgressors. He was subsequently summoned by the police; 1969 the case was dismissed; and on a second summons being issued, the solicitor for the owners of the dogs obtained leave from the magistrates to withdraw the case, as a civil action was also pending. This action resulted in a decree by the Chairman of the county for £10 against Mr. Ancketill, which was appealed against, and reduced by Mr. Justice Barry to £5, on the ground that the damages were excessive. Mr. Ancketill does not, therefore, appear to have been convicted of a criminal offence, but cast in damages in a civil action; and the circumstances I have related appear to me to place the case in a somewhat different light from that in which it is presented in the statement read by the hon. Member for Louth. However, as what has happened affects the conduct of a magistrate, I have thought it right to direct that the official reports on the subject shall be referred to the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, with whom the decision in such matters rests.
MR. SULLIVANI beg to give Notice that, affording time for communication with the Lord Chancellor, I will renew this Question, and ask whether the magistrate who dismissed the case did not when he dismissed it state that the cutting of the dog's throat was not cruelty to animals—it was so swift a death?