HC Deb 20 November 1884 vol 294 cc51-2
MR. MOLLOY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that in some recent cases tried before Messrs. Tyrrell and Ridgeway, Justices of the Peace for the Edenderry district, in the King's County, certain convictions being considered illegal, the parties convicted were intimidated from appealing by the said magistrates' clerk, upon the threat that in case of their appeal being successful that should they chance to come before the said magistrates again, they would not deal leniently with them; two of the cases here referred to are Constable Patrick Gibeony, Complainant, William Murphy, Defendant, and Constable John Brown, Complainant, William Murphy, Defendant, both cases tried at Edenderry Petty Sessions on the 8th October last, the Defendant having to pay a fine and costs; whether in another case, Constable McAlroy v. W. Murphy, in the same Court, about fifteen months since, the clerk of the court, the Defendant, wishing to appeal, paid the said clerk the necessary fees, who nevertheless failed to serve the notices; whether one of the said magistrates is practically the only one who ever presides; whether both are Orangemen; and, what course the Chief Secretary proposes to take in the matter?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The Clerk of Petty Sessions states that he gave no advice and made no suggestion to the defendant in these cases, either on the ground alleged in the Question or on any other ground, but that the defendant, after taking out the necessary certificates to prosecute an appeal in the two cases, decided on the 8th of October last, and, paying the required sum of 2s. for stamp duty on the certificate of conviction, paid the amount of the fines and costs, thus allowing the appeals to drop. With regard to the earlier case mentioned, the County Court Judge dismissed the appeal, because of the non-service on the Petty Sessions Clerk of the notice to Justices required by Section 24 of the Petty Sessions Act. The Clerk of Petty Sessions could not be held responsible for this. He had, in the ordinary course of his duty, prepared an appeal under the direction of the defendant, who paid him 3s. to cover stamp duty for the appeal, recognizance, and notice to the respondent; but he did not undertake the service of any document. Both of the magistrates named in the Question attend the Edenderry Petty Sessions with great regularity. I am not aware whether they are Orangemen. I see nothing in the case calling for my interference.