HC Deb 11 February 1887 vol 310 cc1227-8
DR. KENNY (Cork, S.)

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as section 19 of Lord O'Hagan's Juries Act, 1871, prescribes that if any Sheriff shall return the name of any person to serve as a juror contrary to the provisions for the returning of jurors in rotation hereinbefore in this section contained, the Court or Judge before whom such person is returned to servo as a juror, shall in every such case impose any fine not exceeding £5 upon the Sheriff, Can he say whether Chief Baron Palles, at Sligo, imposed any fine on the Sheriff in the case of jurors irregularly summoned on the quashed panel; and, if so, how much per juror illegally summoned; and, if not, can explanation be given why the law has not been carried out?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

(who replied) said: The section of the Juries Act of 1871 contains the Proviso referred to in the Question. The entire panel was quashed by the Lord Chief Baron on the ground of irregularity after a previous finding by two triers on a challenge to the array, acquitting the Sheriff of any partiality, fraud, or wilful misconduct. This finding was approved of by the learned Judge. I am not aware that he imposed any fine, or that any suggestion was made on behalf of any juror or by the learned counsel for the prisoners that the Proviso applied to the case, or that a fine could or ought to have been imposed, and I see no reason for holding a different opinion.

DR. KENNY

Might I ask, is not the clause mandatory on the Judge?

MR. GIBSON

I have stated my opinion, Sir.