§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at 3 a.m. on the 30th ultimo a Sheriff's bailiff, named John Daly, made an illegal seizure of cattle, the property of Patrick Casey, a tenant of Mr. D. O'Connell, at Feeromoyle, County Kerry; that the bailiff, on being called upon to exhibit his authority, assaulted the tenant and his son, who, for acting in self-defence, were arrested, taken in custody to Cahirciveen, 10 miles distant, detained there in the bridewell for two days, bail being refused, and finally discharged at the Petty Sessions on the following day, on the ground that the seizure was illegal; whether it was legal to place the cattle, not in a public pound, but in a private building, the property of the Sheriffs bailiff, and to detain and sell them after the seizure had been declared illegal; and whether the police, before affording protection to the bailiff, adopted any means to satisfy themselves whether he was authorised to make the seizure?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne)It is a fact that on the date and at the hour mentioned a Sheriff's bailiff made a seizure of cattle as stated, but it is not true, I am informed, that the bailiff assaulted Casey or his son. They were arrested for attempted rescue of the cattle and conveyed by car a distance of 10 miles to Cahirciveen, 1755 where they were remanded by a local Justice on the charge of attempted rescue, and detained in custody for 33 hours. Bail was not refused. The Magistrates at Petty Sessions refused informations on the ground that the warrant on which the bailiff acted was not addressed to him personally. It would not, I am informed, be illegal to place cattle, seized under a writ of fi fa, elsewhere than in a public pound, provided the seizure be regularly carried out. But, if the seizure were made under an illegal warrant, as the Magistrates appear to have decided in the present instance, the whole proceeding would seem to have been illegal, and the detention of cattle in any place was a wrongful act. The police evidently acted on the assumption that the warrant was in all respects regular; if they had been aware of the illegality in it they would not have acted as they did. As, however, it is expected that a civil action will be taken against the bailiff and the Sheriff in connection with this seizure, I do not think it expedient at the present stage to discuss the action of the police on the occasion.
§ MR. SEXTONI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Sheriff was called upon to show his authority, and refused to do so? Would it not be as well to issue instructions to the police warning them against assisting in illegal acts of this kind?
MR. J. MORLEYUndoubtedly their action is to be regretted on this occasion, and the attention of the officers concerned has been called to the matter. I cannot say if the police demanded to see the Sheriff's authority.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)Wherein was the illegality of the seizure?
MR. J. MORLEYThe illegality arose from the fact that the warrant did not contain the name of the bailiff' to whom it was addressed. That is a requirement which ought to be complied with.
§ MR. DANE (Fermanagh, N.)Was not the warrant addressed to a certain bailiff or his assistants?