HC Deb 27 March 1882 vol 268 cc25-7
MR. METGE

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that in the case of Constable Forbes, who was fined£3 at a court of inquiry at Kells, county Meath, for being drunk, and, consequently, lost all chance of future promotion, seven witnesses swore to his being sober, while only two witnesses swore to the contrary; whether two of the seven witnesses above mentioned were Doctors Ring-wood and Sparrow, physicians of high standing; whether it is true that Dr. Sparrow swore on his oath that he "had not a doubt on his mind as to the defendant's sobriety." That "it was utterly impossible for the defendant," if drunk, "to have got sober in the time" (viz. the time which elapsed between his arrest and that at which Dr. Sparrow examined him), and, further, that, "if suffering from 'ear vertigo,' he would have all the appearance of a drunken man;" whether Dr. Ringwood swore on his oath— That the defendant was suffering from 'ear vertigo,' which would cause him to sway to and fro;" "that the symptoms came on suddenly;" "that the defendant could not have stated the symptoms of 'ear vertigo' more clearly if he was a medical man;" "that the symptoms could not possibly have been caused by intoxication, but that, if "he had met him in the street," he might, as the head constable had done, have "mistaken his case for one of intoxication;" whether, in pursuance of Section 1,637 of the Code of Regulations, which states that In cases where the Court records a finding contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, their reasons for discrediting such evidence should he stated, the court stated their reasons for having decided against the weight of the evidence; and, whether, seeing the hardship entailed by Constable Forbes, by reason of the record against his character, he will grant him a new trial before the bench of magistrates of Kells?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Sir, I must apologize to you and the House for necessarily a somewhat long reply to this very lengthy Question. I am aware that seven witnesses, including two doctors, deposed to the constable's sobriety; and that two constables, by whom he was removed from duty, deposed to his insobriety. The rule of evidence is testes ponderantur, non numerantur, and observing that rule, no doubt, the Court acted on what they considered the reliable evidence. Neither of the doctors gave precisely the evidence attributed to him in this question. Dr. Sparrow—who saw the constable one hour and 25 minutes after the charge was made—deposed that he "examined the man by smelling his breath and walking him up and down the room," and concluded his evidence by stating that he "believed the constable was perfectly sober then." Dr. Ringwood—who saw the constable two hours after the charge was made—deposed that— From the symptoms he observed, and from the unprompted history given him by the constable, he was of opinion that the swaying motion and staggering gait were caused by 'ear vertigo,' and that such symptoms come on suddenly, and have often been mistaken for the effects of drink. The Court did not decide against the weight of evidence. On the contrary, they decided according to the weight of the evidence, and not according to the number of witnesses examined on each side, and they pointed out that they believed the insobriety was slight in the first instance, and that in the interval the constable had recovered sobriety. In my opinion, this is entirely a matter of the discipline of the Force, which does not call for any interference by the Chief Secretary; but I am informed by the authorities that Sub-Constable Forbes does not by the fine on this occasion lose all chance of future promotion.