HC Deb 30 April 1883 vol 278 cc1435-6

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Edward Quinn, of Newport Street, Dublin, was refused the renewal of a beer dealer's licence at the annual Lisensing Sessions held for the city of Dublin in October, 1878, on the ground of habitual violation of the law; whether Mr. Quinn afterwards made repeated applications for a licence both at the Police Court and at the Recorder's Court, these applications being refused; whether, on June 13th 1882, Mr. J. A. Curran, Q.C. on of the Dublin Divisional Magistrates, heard an application by Quinn out of Annual Licensing Sessions, and granted the licence which had been refused thereat; and, whether Mr. Curran had been counsel for Quinn in his repeated and unsuccessful applications before the Recorders and Police Magistrates, and if there were any special grounds, as required by Law, for hearing the case out of the sessions fixed by statute for the purpose?


Sir, it is the case that in October, 1878, Edward Quinn was refused a renewal of his beer dealer's licence. The licence for which, both before and since that forfeiture, he has several times unsuccessfully applied was a publican's licence, which is quite a different and more important kind of licence. This he has never obtained. In 1877 he made the earliest of these applications, and on that occasion only he was represented by Mr. Curran. With regard to the renewal of his beer dealer's licence, it has been the practice for the Dublin magistrates to renew such licences after lapse of three years, if applied to, as they considered that in most eases loss of trade for three years was a sufficient punishment. Acting in accordance with that practice, Mr. Curran last year renewed Quinn's licence as a beer dealer. I have received a letter from Mr. Curran, in which he informs me that upon that occasion he had not the slighest recollection of having represented Quinn five year previously in his application for the larger licence, and it cannot be for a moment supposed that he was in any way influenced by that circumstance. It will be seen from this statement that there is no ground for the allegation that Mr. Curran granted to Quinn a licence which he had been refused by other authorities, and I see no reason to find any fault with Mr. Curran's action in the matter.