§ LORD CLONCURRYasked Her Majesty's Government whether they had read in the Dublin papers of the 15th August the following:—
Yesterday, in the Court of Bankruptcy, Judge Boyd, with reference to the ease of Carew, an arranging debtor, said that certain bills were produced and tendered to the assignees for distribution to the creditors. These bills were suspected not to be all right, and it was also suspected that the names of the surety on them and of the witness to the signatures of the surety were not in the handwriting of the parties represented. In consequence of this, witnesses were examined, including Mr. Carew, who stated that the signatures were right and that he saw them attached, and he produced an affidavit of a witness to the signatures—a clerk of his own—certifying that he was present and that he saw the documents executed. That clerk was subsequently examined before him (Judge Boyd), and had to admit that not one of the signatures of the surety was attached in his presence, and that he had signed several of the names himself. Under these circumstances, he (Judge Boyd) thought it right for the due administration of justice that the depositions taken in the case should be sent to the Attorney General with a view to prosecuting the clerk for perjury, and Mr. Carew for subornation of perjury, Mr. Carew in his opinion, being the chief offender. He found that, in the exercise of his discretion, the Attorney General sent up no bill against Carew. The dupe, Ryan, the clerk, who was tried at the Clonmel Assizes, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Lord Chief Justice, who tried the ease, was pleased to express the opinion at the time that he considered Mr. Carew, as he (Judge Boyd) did, as the chief offender, and that if he had been tried and convicted before him he would have sentenced him to five years' penal servitude. But this gentleman had been allowed to go scot-free, notwithstanding that he (Judge Boyd) had considered it necessary that he should draw the attention of the Attorney General to this gross attempt to defeat justice. He would consider what steps might still be taken to see that justice was not defeated. He had frequently to remark upon the inefficient manner in which prosecutions directed by that Court had been carried out.1374 Also, what was the explanation of the Attorney General for Ireland of the matter stated in the Judgment?
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that the Papers in this case had been placed before the Attorney General for Ireland by the Chief Crown Solicitor in April last. From these it appeared that Ryan had committed perjury, and that there was very strong ground for supposing that he had been instigated by his employer, Carew, to make the statements, although there was no evidence to that effect. The Attorney General had directed it prosecution in the case of O'Brien, and the attention of the Attorney General had been directed to the observations of the learned Judge who tried the case, and he had since called for it Report and had promised to consider the question when it came to hand whether there was sufficient evidence to justify it prosecution against Carew. In conclusion, he assured the noble Lord that prosecutions were made in all those cases where the evidence warranted such a course.