§ MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If the Bagenelstown magistrates allege as a reason for dismissing the summons of Mr. M'Grath against the huntsman Duffield that there was no evidence of wilful tresspass; if so, was any witness called for Duffield; did he appear himself in support of this contention; or is it the fact that the prosecutor was the only witness in the case, and that he proved the trespass and the order to leave his holding, but that the Bench nevertheless said M'Grath had only a civil remedy?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)I have no precise information, but am willing to assume that M'Grath was the only witness examined, and that he proved that Duffield entered upon his lands while hunting, and that he ordered him to leave. Under these circumstances, I think the magistrates were right in holding that such a trespass was not wilful or malicious so as to constitute an offence punishable by summary conviction, but was the subject of a civil action.
§ MR. HEALYMight I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, as he has now given a legal opinion, is it his view that if a huntsman trespasses on the lands of a farmer he has no remedy but a civil action?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELANDThat is my opinion.