The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-02-11 00:00:00

FINING A DUKE.

The Duc de Chartres has just been fined £1 for
having omitted to send his horses to be registered by
the military authorities, as is regularly done at the
end of every year. It was pleaded that the duke was
away; that he had always conformed to the law on
the subject, and that no summons had been sent to
his house in the Rue Jean-Goujon. The prosecution,
however, maintained that the notice had been des-
patched in due form by the Mayor of the "Eighth
Arrondissement," and that even if that functionary
had neglected to do so the public had been regularly
, warned by placards posted on the Walls and bearing
thcii.gnakimof the Prefect of the Seine.
. , •

THE AGITATION IN IRELAND.

On Tuesday, in the Exchequer Division at Dublin,
before the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Dowse, and Mr.
Justice Andrews, in the case of "The Queen v. John
Sullivan," the arguments were resumed. The defendant
had been convicted at Killarny by two resident magis-
trates, Captain Massey, R.M., and Mr. A. M‘Dermott,
R.M., on a charge, under the Crimes Act, of conspiring to
compel and induce a man, named Hartigan, a black-
smith, to refuse to shoe a horse for Mrs. Agnes
Curtin, and was sentenced to one month's im-
prisonment with hard labour. An application
for a certiorari by the defendant had been
refused by the Queen's Bench Division on the
ground that the Court could not look at the evidence
given before the magistrates. The defendant then
applied to the Exchequer Division for a writ of
habeas corpus. After some argument the Exchequer
Division granted the writ of habeas corpus, and the
question was argued on the return to the habeas
corpus. The Exchequer Division has already decided,
Mr. Baron Dowse dissenting, that they are at liberty
to look at the depositions, not only for the purpose of
determining whether there was jurisdiction in the
magistrates to hear the case, but also to see whether
there was sufficient evidence to convict. At the close
of the arguments the Court held (Mr. Baron Dowse
dissenting) that the evidence was insufficient for con-
viction, and that consequently the defendant should
be discharged.

Between eleven and twelve o'clock on Monday night
Thos. Duffy, a middle-aged man, employed in a dis-
tillery, and living in 61, North King-street, Dublin,
was fired at in Church-street, but escaped injury.
The affair is surrounded with a good deal of mystery,
but the facts appear to be that Duffy was drinking
with several men in Hickey's public-house, in Church-
street. At closing time they were put out, and in the
street one of them drew a revolver and fired at Duffy;
the bullet grazed his shoulder, taking a bit out of his
coat, and lodged in the shutter of the public-
house. The police did not learn of the affair for some
time, and it was about three o'clock next morning
when word reached Superintendent Reddy. Chief
Inspector Hughes and Detective Officers Giblan and
Doyle immediately proceeded to the scene, and as the
result of their investigation the three following men
were arrested: Joseph Monks, aged 34, bookbinder;
Samuel Richardson (50), compositor; and William
Skelton (38), compositor. The prisoners were brought
before the police magistrates on Tuesday. Skelton and
Monks were discharged, and Richardson was sent for
trial to the Commission Court.