HC Deb 27 August 1886 vol 308 cc657-8
MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Murphy, in the case of the Queen v. James Phair, at the last Enniskillen Assizes, reported in The Freeman's Journal of the 8th July last, in the following terms:— James Phair was put forward and charged with committing a serious assault on one John M'Manus, at Lisnaskea, on the 5th December; The case was of a party nature, Phair being a Protestant and M'Manus a Roman Catholic; His Lordship commented severely on the conduct of the magistrates at petty sessions, who entered 'no rule' in the case of two other defendants named Moore and Rowe, who were finally charged along with Phair, simply be- cause there was a conflict of evidence as to the identity of the persons charged. His Lordship held that such cases should be returned for trial, and left for a jury, and that it was a monstrous thing for a magistrate to enter 'no rule' under the circumstances; who the magistrates are referred to by his Lordship; and, whether the Lord Chancellor proposes to take any action in regard to their conduct?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has asked me to answer this Question. I am informed by the Resident Magistrate that the observations attributed to Mr. Justice Murphy are substantially correct. The magistrates referred to were Captain M'Ternan and Messrs. Trench, Creighton, Winslow, Johnston, and Westrop, who seem to have been unanimous in entering "no rule" in the case of Moore and Rowe. I do not gather from the Judge's observations that he attributed anything more to the magistrates than au error of judgment; and if that be so it would hardly be a case for action on the part of the Lord Chancellor.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Captain M'Ternan is a Resident Magistrate of experience.