HC Deb 24 February 1902 vol 103 cc907-8
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the trial of Mr. John B. Walsh, at Callan, on Monday last, charged with writing a letter of an intimidatory character, Sergeant Sheridan stated upon oath that he had made deliberate and lying misrepresentations to the defendant in order to obtain his signature for the purpose of comparison with the alleged intimidatory letter; and whether this was done with the knowledge of Sergeant Sheridan's superior officers; and, if so, whether such a practice has official sanction; and will he say what action, if any, he proposes to take in this matter.

MR. WYNDHAM

The first paragraph does not accurately represent the facts. The sergeant stated he procured a specimen of the handwriting of the accused by asking him to fill up a form dealing with weights and measures. The accused having been returned for trial at the Assizes, I must decline to discuss further the question of the propriety of the action of the sergeant in the present case.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this police officer went twice to this man?

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has declined to discuss the matter further.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this matter in mind when—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a prosecution was brought against Mr. J. B. Walsh, of Callan, County Kilkenny, under 1 and 2 Will.4, c.44, s.3, for alleged circulation of an intimidatory letter; and whether he will state the reason why Mr. Walsh was not proceeded against under a more recent procedure.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)

At my right hon. friend's request, I will reply to this Question. The reason why the Statute mentioned was availed of is that there is no more recent Statute so applicable to that offence.