HC Deb 13 March 1884 vol 285 cc1346-7
MR. SEXTON

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to a case heard by the Duleek (county Meath) Petty Sessions Bench, on the 8th ultimo, in which the Inland Revenue Department prosecuted Peter Kangley, a herd in the employment of Mr. St. George Osborne, J.P., for having killed a hare with a gun, and for having carried the gun without an Excise licence; whether the prosecution was set on foot, through the Police, by Colonel S. H. Smith, J.P. who arrested the Defendant on the occasion in question, took him to the Duleek Police Station, giving him in charge to the Police, and is alleged to have reported that he had seen him kill the hare; whether, at the hearing, Colonel Smith swore that he neither saw, nor had said he saw, the Defendant shoot the hare, and both the Chairman (Captain Nicholson) and Mr. M'Carthy, E.M. opposed the examination of Constable Whittaker, upon the ground, as stated by the Chairman, that his evidence "would only make it appear that Colonel Smith told a lie;" whether Constable Whittaker swore that Colonel Smith, told him he had seen the Defendant shoot the hare; whether, nevertheless, the charge of shooting the hare was dismissed; whether Mr. Osborne, J. P. the employer of the Defendant, took part in the hearing of the case, and in the decision upon it; whether the Defendant had a magisterial licence for possession of the gun; whether Colonel Smith, J.P. the witness, gave his evidence from the bench, remained upon the bench during the hearing of the case, made observations upon the prosecution and the evidence, and took part in the deliberation and decision of the magistrates; and, if it be not permitted to magistrates to adjudicate in cases in which they are witnesses, or to oppose the examination of a witness on the ground that it may discredit a previous witness, what notice will be taken of the conduct of Colonel Smith and the language of Captain Nicholson and Mr. M'Carthy?

MR. TREVELYAN,

in reply, said, the reports of these two cases showed a difference of recollection as to what actually occurred. There appeared to have been an irregular discussion; but he did not think that there was any reason to suppose that the cases were not properly adjudicated upon. It appeared that Mr. Smith and Mr. Osborne merely joined in an irregular conversation that took place. It was not usual for magistrates to sit upon the Bench in cases where they were interested, and he thought that in this case it would certainly have been better if they had not done so. Mr. M'Carthy objected to the evidence of Constable Whittaker—not on the grounds stated, but because it was irrelevant. It appeared that the man had a magisterial licence, and not an Excise licence, and for this he was fined.

MR. SEXTON

asked whether, in similar cases, two men had not been previously sentenced to two months' imprisonment for the same offence, and why this employé of the magistrate had not been dealt with in a similar way?

MR. TREVELYAN

I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question.