HC Deb 15 February 1884 vol 284 cc1000-1
MR. HARRINGTON

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case reported in The King's County Chronicle of 24th January, wherein Mr. Bunbury, Master of the Ormond Harriers, his Whip, and some other persons, were prosecuted by a farmer for trespassing by hunting on certain lands; whether Mr. M'Sheehy, R.M. dismissed the case, and would have given costs, but that the Defendants did not press for them; whether the Resident Magistrate added— That he, for one, would not again sign a summons of the nature of that before him, and— That, if his brother magistrates adopted his suggestion, they would not do so either; and— That, if an injury was caused by trespass such as that alleged, the remedy was by a 'civil action;' if the Government approve the course taken by the Resident Magistrates' pro- posed refusal to grant summonses in such cases for trespass; whether it is their view of the Law that tenants must proceed against trespassers by civil action; and, what notice has been taken of the language of Mr. M'Sheehy?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

I have read the report in The King's County Chronicle of the proceedings on certain summonses for trespass brought by a woman named Anne Houlahan against Mr. Bunbury, Master of the Ormond Harriers and his Whip and certain other persons who accompanied the hunt, for hunting on the lands of complainant. The two magistrates who presided, including Mr. M'Sheehy, dismissed the case. Costs were asked for, in the first instance, and were about to be given; but the defendants afterwards did not press for them, and consequently they were not awarded. The Resident Magistrate made the statement alluded to in the Question. In any case in which the facts would be the same as that then before the Court, it is quite plain a summons for trespass under the Summary Jurisdiction Act could not be sustained; and the Government see no ground for interfering with the exercise of the Resident Magistrate's discretion in the granting or refusing of a summons in such a case. If a tenant desires to try a civil action for trespass in such a case, the section in question expressly saves his right, and the law of the land leaves it open to him. No notice has been taken of the language of Mr. M'Sheehy.