§ MR. MORRIS (Kilkenny, S.)I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that a tramp, named Bridget Harrigan, pleaded guilty to an indictment for perjury in connection with a false charge of a criminal nature which she brought against a farmer, Mr. R. Bolger, of Garryduff county Kilkenny, but that, notwithstanding her confession of guilt, she was released without punishment; also that the police, on her unsupported testimony, caused Mr. Bolger to be summarily arrested and sent for trial to the Assizes, although, as events proved, the smallest inquiry would have shown that the charge was false; can any reason be assigned for the discharge of Bridget Harrigan; will the Crown consider whether the heavy expense to which Mr. Bolger was put by his arrest and trial can be provided for; and why did the Crown originally refuse to prosecute the woman until Mr. Bolger's action compelled them to do so.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe facts are as follows. On the 7th July, 1897, Bridget Harrigan reported to the police that she had been criminally assaulted by Mr. Bolger, who was at once arrested and on the following day returned for trial at Assizes by a local justice of the peace. There was absolutely no corroboration of the woman's story, and although a Roman Catholic clergyman and several other persons were ready to prove that Mr. Bolger was in another place at the time of the alleged assault, the justice referred to refused to take any evidence for the defence. The matter was thereupon reported to the Government, who issued directions that the Crown should enter a nolle prosequi at Assizes. Mr Bolger was in- 279 formed of this, and he did not attend the Assizes. In August a solicitor on behalf of Mr. Bolger applied to the magistrates at Petty Sessions for a warrant for the arrest of the woman on a charge of perjury. The district inspector, acting on the invariable rule in such cases, informed the magistrates he could not take any steps in this case until he consulted the authorities. He applied for instructions, and the Government directed the Crown Solicitor to prosecute the woman for perjury and to have a warrant issued for her arrest. She was arrested on the 21st September, and on the 23rd September was sent for trial to the Assizes. After her arrest she made a statement admitting she had committed perjury, and that she had been forced to do so by her husband with the object of extorting money from Mr. Bolger. She was subsequently released on her own recognisances to take her trial at the Assizes. The reason assigned by the judge in discharging her at the Assizes was that he believed she had acted under the compulsion of her husband. It is right to add that the woman was in Waterford Prison awaiting trial for one month. With reference to the third paragraph, the Government has no funds at its disposal out of which to compensate Mr. Bolger for any losses he may have incurred. As regards the last paragraph, the Crown did not, as I have stated, refuse to prosecute the woman.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)Has the right hon. gentleman received the statement of the husband?
§ MR. ATKINSONThere was no evidence in the case against the husband. That was the conclusion to which the judge came. He said the statement of the woman would not be evidence against the husband.
MR. T. M. HEALYWhy was a nolle prosequi entered, instead of bringing the man to trial and enabling him to get his acquittal from a jury?
§ MR. ATKINSONIt was the proper course to take.
MR. T. M. HEALYThe man was put to all this expense. Who is the learned judge that gave that sacred opinion?
§ MR. DILLONHas anything been done in respect of the magistrate who refused to hear evidence for the defence?
§ MR. ATKINSONNothing can be done.