§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has his attention been called to the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of "Kevil v. King-Harman," on 9th May, in which Thomas Kevil, who had been summoned by Colonel King-Harman for cutting turf on his own holding and fined therefor by the Boyle Bench, although a question of title was raised at Petty Sessions by his solicitor, Mr. M'Morrow, obtained a quashing of the conviction on certiorari; is it the fact that Kevil, in his affidavit, swore, in reference to Mr. Charles Webb, J. P., the agent of Colonel King-Harman, when his solicitor filed an affidavit that he applied for a conditional order by Kevil's authority, as follows:—
Beirne (Colonel King-Harman's bailiff came to me in Boyle, and informed me that said 863 Charles Webb required me to attend in the estate office. I thereupon went to said office. Said Charles Webb said to me, 'We have been served with an order from the Queen's Bench; we have only a few days to send in a return; and what I want you to do is to make an affidavit that you did not instruct Mr. M'Morrow for this Law.' I replied, I would do no such thing, and immediately left the office;that a further affidavit was made by Mr. M'Morrow, that he had asked Mr. Webb, J. P., by letter, if this were true, and it was not denied in the answer sent, nor in the counter affidavits filed on Colonel King-Harman's behalf; and will the Government call the Lord Chancellor's attention to this sworn allegation against a magistrate, that he had endeavoured to tamper with a client of a solicitor?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)(who replied) said, that perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to answer the Question. He was informed the statements in the first, second, and third paragraphs of the Question were substantially correct. He was also informed, with respect to the subject of the second paragraph of the Question, that Kevil informed the estate surveyor that he did not want law, and that he did not instruct his solicitor, whereupon he was naturally asked to verify this statement by affidavit. This Kevil declined to do. Under these circumstances, there was no intention of calling the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the case.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say if it was true that this man Kevil had filed an affidavit swearing as was set forth in the Question? He wished also to ask whether that sworn statement remained uncontradicted by this magistrate, who was the agent of Colonel King-Harman?
§ MR. HOLMESsaid, he had answered the Question already.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYgave Notice that on the Estimates he would call attention to this attempt on the part of an official Member of the Government to put pressure upon a tenant to make a statement in order to make it appear that his solicitor was a perjurer.