§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that Major Hutchinson, R.M., and other magistrates at Bagenalstown, on 13th February, dismissed a summons for trespass under 14 and 15 Vic. c. 92, s. 8, brought by a farmer named M'Grath, against a huntsman named Duffield, although the offence was clearly proved and the trespass not denied, did the bench decide that, even admitting the trespass was wilful, still riding away over the lands was a sufficient compliance with the order to leave; and, if so, have the Government considered the serious results that may result consequent upon such trespasses, in defiance of the occupiers, if the latter discover that they have no chance of legal redress against huntsmen?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)The magistrates at Bagenalstown dismissed a summons for trespass brought by a farmer named M'Grath against a Mr. Duffield for a trespass committed in hunting over his lands. They did so on the ground that the trespass was not shown to be either wilful or malicious, and that, therefore, the remedy was not under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. They did not decide that, if the trespass was wilful, riding away over the lands excused the defendant. They also pointed out that the remedy in the case before them was by civil action.
§ MR. HEALYHas the hon. and learned Gentleman said whether it was not distinctly a trespass; whether the gentleman was told to leave, and, in defiance of the occupier, rode away over the lands; and whether the magistrates dismissed the case? Is that a fact, or is it not?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)was understood to say that he had already given his answer.
§ MR. HEALYI will put this Question again, so that we may understand distinctly. I beg to give Notice that I will ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, on Thursday next, whether, in this case, the magistrates refused to conviot a gentleman who trespassed over lands in defiance of the occupier?