HC Deb 30 July 1888 vol 329 cc736-7
DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that Edward Mahony, John Manley, Denis Healy, and others, who were prosecuted before a Court held at Rathcormack, County Cork, on Tuesday the 24th instant, for alleged obstruction and resistance to the Sheriff and his assistants in the discharge of their duty, on presenting themselves before the Court, and having been at the expense of bringing counsel from Cork to Rathcormack to defend them, were informed by Mr. Eaton, R.M., the only Resident Magistrate present, that the case was adjourned for a fortnight; whether the reason the Court was not constituted was because Mr. Sub-Sheriff Gale was unable to attend; why District Inspector Jones, who was, according to his admission before Mr. Eaton, R.M., aware Mr. Gale could not attend, did not inform the defendants and prevent the unnecessary expense and trouble; whether it is a fact that Mr. Gale, when speaking to one of the defendants, Mr. Edward Mahony, on Monday night, also neglected to inform him; and, whether the expense entailed by the neglect of the Crown officials will be re-imbursed by the Crown, and the officials censured?

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

The statements in the first and second paragraphs of the Question are correct. The case referred to being a charge of obstructing the Sub-Sheriff was necessarily postponed in consequence of the absence of that official. He could not appear at Rathcormack because he was bound to be in attendance from day to day at the Cork Summer Assizes. The District Inspector who was prosecuting in the case had notice that the Sub-Sheriff could not attend. He made inquiries from the legal gen- tlemen practising in Fermoy, with a view to informing them that he could not proceed with the case on the day fixed. He was not aware that the accused had employed a Cork solicitor and intended to appear by counsel. The Sub-Sheriff, Mr. Gale, is not a Government official. I cannot say what conversation he may have had with the accused persons. There is no foundation for the charge of neglect against the Crown officials conveyed in the last paragraph of the Question.

DR. TANNER

asked, whether this District Inspector had not ample time to tell the people the night before that the Court could not be held, and in that way save them great expense; also, whether it was not the fact that the solicitor for the accused occupied a whole day in driving from Cork to the place where the Sessions were to be held?

MR. MADDEN

said, he was not aware that the District Inspector had the opportunity spoken of, or that it was possible for him to communicate personally with the accused. He communicated with the practitioners at Fermoy, one of whom he presumed would be engaged for the accused.

DR. TANNER

asked, if District Inspector Jones did not see several of the accused the night before the case was to be tried; and whether the Inspector's conduct did not amount, practically speaking, to a second fining of the people?

MR. MADDEN

said, he did not gather that from the information supplied to him.