§ MR. JOHN ROCHEI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at an open court held in Mount Bellew, in the county of Galway, on 28th April last, the magistrates refused to allow witnesses to be examined in cases against Thomas Connor and Matt Fahy, when applications were made to estreat their recognisances, though their solicitor denied the truth of the complaint, and demanded that evidence should be heard on both sides; whether such refusal to hear witnesses was in accordance with Section 20 of the Petty Sessions Act; whether Section 34 of the Petty Sessions Act, dealing with recognisances, was complied with; whether, seeing that no special form of proof of such non-performance is provided by statute, the ordinary proof must be given as provided by Section 20 of the Petty Sessions Act, and evidence heard on both sides; whether he is aware that the magistrates admitted in evidence, as proof of the non-performance of the conditions of the recognisances, certificates of such non-performance signed by one magistrate at the foot of the recognisances dated 31st March, 1907, though no offence or conviction was proved; what jurisdiction had the magistrates to admit such certificates in evidence as proof of the non-performance of the conditions referred to; what order, if any, did the magistrates make on this occasion; and, considering all the circumstances of the case, will he take steps, if fines were imposed, to have these fines remitted or else very much reduced.
§ MR. BIRRELLOn 2nd November, 1907, Thomas Connor and Matthew Fahy were charged with cattle-driving, and were bound over, with sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 514 twelve months. On 27th March, 1908, they were again charged with cattle-driving, and the resident magistrate, holding the case to be proved, certified in due form on the recognisances the non-performance of the condition, and again ordered the defendants to find sureties for a fresh period of twelve months. On 28th April an application to estreat the first recognisances was made to the magistrates at Petty Sessions. The magistrates unanimously held that the certificates of forfeiture on the original recognisances were binding on the Court, and they declined to go into any other evidence of breach of the condition of the recognisances. They accordingly ordered the recognisances to be estreated in the sum of £2 each in the case of the principal parties, and £1 each in the case of the sureties. The question whether the magistrates were right in their interpretation of the Acts bearing upon the case is one for the decision of a higher Court, and it is not for me to express any opinion upon it. It was open to Connor and Fahy to appeal against the order estreating their recognisances.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the magistrate who made the order estreating the recognisances was the one who made the original commitment?
§ MR. BIRRELLI will inquire.