HC Deb 28 May 1906 vol 158 c83
MR. KEDDY (King's County, Birr)

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at Woodford petty sessions on the 14th instant, when a man named James M'Mahon was summoned by the police for having a dog without a licence; whether he is aware that M'Mahon and his son both swore he had not a dog, and that the policeman admitted he did not see a dog but heard one bark, that he had a dog of his own with him which was barking, and that the policeman who gave evidence was accompanied by another policeman who was not examined because he did not see a dog or hear one bark except the dog they had with them; whether, seeing that the magistrates, White, E.M., and Lewis, J.P., fined M'Mahon, will he say whether payment of the fine will be insisted on; and whether, in view of the evidence given by Sergeant Sheridan and other policemen in recent years in Connaught which resulted in innocent men being convicted and sentenced to two years' hard labour, and the disbelief in police testimony in Ireland, a sworn inquiry will be held into the whole circumstances and conduct of the prosecution.

MR. BRYCE

I am informed by the police authorities that James M'Mahon was summoned by the police for having had an unlicensed dog in his possession on a specific date, and was fined two shillings, which he has paid. The sufficiency of the evidence was a matter for the magistrates, and I cannot undertake to review their judicial decision by entering into the details of the case. The Inspector-General informs me that he is satisfied that the constable gave his evidence fairly. The case is not one in which a sworn inquiry can be ordered.