§ MR. L. P. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)
I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that Dr. Dillon, medical officer of Stokestown Union, and recently appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the county of Roscommon, in 596 a charge of assault brought by the Queen at the prosecution of Patrick M'Laughlin against Francis M'Laughlin and Michael M'Laughlin, was called in and professionally employed to attend Patrick M'Laughlin, the prosecutor; that the defendants were obliged to pay Dr. Dillon £2 for a certificate that the life of the prosecutor was not in danger before they got out on bail; that Dr. Dillon afterwards, on the 1st August, attended as a magistrate at Rooskey Petty Sessions, in the county of Roscommon, at the hearing of the said complaint and adjudicated upon it. notwithstanding the protest of the solicitor for the defence that he should not do so, being an interested party who had been in professional attendance for a reward upon the prosecutor; and that Dr. Dillon refused to leave the Bench, and took an active interest in the proceedings, saying that he did not care for the protest of the solicitor, and adjudicated with the other magistrates in the case, when the defendants were fined £4 and costs and, whether, seeing that the Chief Secretary has stated that it would be improper for a magistrate to adjudicate in a case in which he had been professionally engaged, and promised to bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, he has done so, and what is the result?
§ MR. M. BODKIN (Roscommon, N.)
Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask whether the same question was not asked last year; and whether a question containing imputations on the same medical gentleman was put last Friday and found to be utterly without foundation?
MR. J. MORLEY
I believe there was such a question last year; but I cannot carry all the questions in my mind. The Lord Chancellor in August last had a correspondence with Dr. Dillon on the subject of this question. Dr. Dillon stated he had received a fee of £2 for giving the certificate, but that he had acted as a magistrate with bonâ fides and quite impartially. The Lord Chancellor, while accepting Dr. Dillon's statement, pointed out that his action left his conduct open to serious misinterpretation, and required that he would not again take part as a magistrate in any case in which he had been in any way professionally engaged.