HC Deb 11 December 1888 vol 331 cc1753-5
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Mayo, S.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, since the 29th ultimo, he has been more fully informed respecting the conduct of Mr. Longbourne, R.M., at Claremorris Petty Sessions; whether he is now aware that on the 21st ultimo Mr. Longbourne, of his own motion, and without the consent of the defendants or of the plaintiff Mr. Cuffe, postponed three trespass cases instituted by Cuffe, and calling Head Constable Murray to take a seat by his side at the Bench, instructed him to take proceedings against the alleged trespassers under Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether it is a fact that Mr. Cuffe's trespass case having again come before the Court in the usual course, on the 6th instant, plaintiff with his solicitor being ready to go on with his cases, defendants also with their solicitor being prepared to enter on their defence, Mr. Longbourne refused to hear the cases, stating to defendants' solicitor that he did so "on instructions he received;" whether it is a fact that on the evening of Wednesday the 5th instant Head Constable Murray visited Cuffe, the plaintiff, and asked him to withdraw the trespass cases in favour of the proceedings advised by Mr. Longbourne; whether he will learn from the Attorney General for Ireland on whose instructions Mr. Longbourne is acting; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will have Mr. Longbourne removed to some other place?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said (Dublin University)

I am informed that at Claremorris Petty Sessions on the 22nd of November, after hearing Cuffe's evidence in the cases for wilful trespass, the Resident Magistrate called the Head Constable to the back of the Bench to inquire if the case had been reported to the proper authorities. He did not call him to take a seat by his side. He adjourned the case on his own motion, and without the consent of plaintiff or defendant. The adjourned cases came on again for hearing on 6th instant. The plaintiff and defendant, with their respective solicitors, were present. The solicitor for the defendant pressed for a hearing of the cases; and the Resident Magistrate stated that he was "instructed" that the Attorney General for Ireland had ordered a prosecution under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act against the defendants among other persons, and he therefore considered it his duty to again adjourn the cases for trespass, pending the decision of the Court under the Act. I am not aware if Head Constable Murray requested Cuffe to withdraw the case for trespass. The Resident Magistrate acted entirely on his own responsibility for what he considered best in the interests of justice. There is no ground for the course suggested in the last paragraph.

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)

asked, by what right this magistrate, in the case of a private prosecution brought to remedy a private wrong, deprived the prosecutor of the tribunal which he selected, and sent the case before another? The note of the decision of this case appeared to be— Adjourned to the 31st of January, 1889, having been instructed that the Crown had taken up the case. Had the Government, then, sent their instructions to the Judge presiding in the Court, and not to their Legal Representative?

MR. MADDEN

replied, that the Magistrate was bound to adjourn the case, having regard to the directions of the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not addressed himself to the Question put. First, had a Resident Magistrate any right to deprive a private prosecutor of his choice of a tribunal, and to supersede his action in this manner; and, secondly, did the Government in Ireland send its instructions in such a case to the Presiding Magistrate, and not to its Legal Representative?

MR. MADDEN

replied again, that the Magistrate was bound to postpone the case on the action taken by the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

asked, was the Magistrate instructed direct from Dublin Castle in the case, or was he not?

[No reply.]