HC Deb 07 May 1883 vol 279 cc34-5
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether section 12, sub-section 2, of the 37th and 38th Victoria, c. 69, enacts that certificates for beer dealers' licences shall only be granted at annual licensing sessions in October of each year, unless in cases where special circumstances are shown to exist; if he will state on what special grounds Mr. John A. Curran, Q.C., one of the divisional magistrates, granted such a certificate to Mr. Edward Quinn, of Newport Street, on the 13th June 1882, out of annual sessions, Quinn having previously lost his licence for habitual violations of the Law; whether, as reported in the "Freeman's Journal" on the 20th of April last, Henry Skelton, Spirit Grocer, Curzon Street, Dublin, was prosecuted by the police authorities before Mr. Curran for supplying intoxicating liquor to a constable while on duty; whether Mr. Skel- ton had previously been charged with a similar offence, and, if his defence on this occasion was that the drink supplied was by way of a treat; whether this is an offence against the Statute, and if Mr. Curran dismissed the summons; whether Skelton was a previous client of Mr. Curran at licensing sessions; whether on the same day Mr. Patrick Bagnall, publican, of Thomas Street, was charged with a like offence before Mr. Curran, and pleaded guilty; whether Mr. Curran dismissed this summons also; and, if Mr. Bagnall was also a client of Mr. Curran'a at licensing sessions?

MR. TREVELYAN

The hon. Member does not accurately quote the words of the statutory provision to which he refers, which says nothing about special circumstances. The words of the Act are—"In such cases as may seem fit to the Justice." I have already explained, in reply to a former Question, the circumstances under which Mr. Curran saw fit to renew Mr. Curran's licence. The charge against Henry Skelton was not for supplying intoxicating liquor to a constable, but to an ordinary member of the public. The defendant was examined, and swore that the drink was given by him as a treat, and was not paid for. Taking this and the defendant's respectability into account, the magistrate dismissed the case. Patrick Bagnall was charged with having supplied drink to two constables on duty. He pleaded guilty, and threw himself on the mercy of the Court; and he was "cautioned" by Mr. Curran. This caution can and will be quoted against him in the event of his being again prosecuted. The police are quite satisfied with the decisions in these cases. I am not aware whether these persons were former clients of Mr. Curran, nor do I think it necessary to inquire. Mr. Curran, like every barrister who is appointed to a judicial office, is liable to decide on cases connected with former clients of his own. I may add that Mr. Curran is a magistrate of whose integrity and ability the Government entertain a high opinion.