The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-12-18 00:00:00

THE DILLON PROSECUTION.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, on Satur-
day, the prnceedings instituted by the Crown against
Mr. John Dillon, M.P., for intimidation, and which
were adjourned from last Tuesday week, were re-
sumed. Mr. Holmes, M.P. (Attorney-General for
Ireland), Mr. Gibson, M.P. (Solicitor-General), and
Mr. G. V. Hart (instructed by Mr. P. Coll) appeared
for the Crown; Mr. John Roche, Q.C., and Mr. T.
M. Healy (instructed by Alderman V. B. Dillon, soli-
citor), appeared for the traverser, who was not in at-
tendance. Mr. Justice O'Brien and Mr. Justice
Johnson took their seats on the bench.
The Attorney-General, having read the statements
in the affidavits of Inspector Flower and of John
Mark O'Brien, County Inspector Royal Irish Con-
stabulary, stationed at Ballinasloe, said that a very
melancholy state of affairs was shown to have existed
in Woodford. He then read the speech made by
Mr. Dillon on the 7th ult., at Keenagh, and main-
tained that the key-note of the speech was organisa-
tion or combination, to include men who could and
men who could not pay, the object of the organisation
being to decline to pay rent except such as they
might themselves fix, or to decline to pay any rent
except on certain conditions. At Woodford the law
was put in force against the tenants. The sheriff of
the county, attended by his assistants, was attacked,
and boiling water, lime, and stones were hurled at
him. Although he had the assistance of the consta-
bulary, and on one occasion military, he was four
hours before he could enter one single house, and
then it could only be entered by scaling ladders and
through the roof. He also laid before the Court the
affidavit of Sergeant John Condron, of Cork, em-
bodying what purported to be Mr. Dillon's speech
at Murroe, county Limerick. This speech the Attor-
ney-General said was a "powerfully dangerous one."
He asked if Mr. Dillon was ordered to find securities
that they should be in a subatantial amount, so that
if the securities were forfeited a substantial punish-
ment would be inflicted.
Mr. Roche claimed that he was entitled, on behalf
of the traverser, to cross-examine the witnesses who
made affidavits for the Crown.
The Attorney-General said the witnesses were all
present, but the cross-examination was contrary to the
practice of the Court, and he objected to it, and a long
legal argument on the point ensued.
Mr. Healy called the attention of the Court to the
proceedings on the last day as reported in rainy of
the newspapers. He now saw that the object of the
Crown in the course they took on the last day was to
cheat him of his rights.
-Mr. Justice O'Brien said language such as that was
not necessary, and should not be used.
Mr. Healy said he regretted having used language
that called for his lordship's censure. He would like
to know what they wanted the Crown witnesses there
for if they were not to be cross-examined. Was Mr.
Flower to use monstrous statements against Mr.
Dillon, and was Mr. Dillon to have no right to con-
trovert those statements?
Mr. Justice Johnson said the question before the
Court was simply one of practice. The effect of the
matter being discussed on the last day might have
misled the traverser, and he had not 61ed any affida-
vits, on the assumption that the Crown witnesses
would be cross-examined.
Direct evidence and cross-examinations (in conneP
tion with which there was nothing of importance)
were then cone into. Mr. Roche, at the conclusion of
the evidence, addressed the judges upon a legal point,
that no breach of the peace had occurred. If it had
occurred, the offending party had been dealt with.
The Court adjourned.

On Monday Justices O'Brien and Johnson decided
that Mr. Dillon's counsel were not entitled td prodrce
witnesses to answer the affidavits filed by the Crown
authorities, Mr. Dillon having ref ured to answer by
affidavits. His counsel thereupon withdrew from the
case, and Mr. Dillon claimed the right of addrersing
the Court, and applied for an adjournment, to pre-
pare his defence. This was resisted by the Attorney-
General, but was grat ted by the Court.

On Tuesday Mr. John Dillon spoke at some length
in his own defence, in the course of which he declared
that the Government reports of his speeches, though
for the most part fair, contained some monstrous
expressions which he had never used. He was
followed by the Solicitor-General, and the court
afterwards o,ave judgment, ordering him to find
sureties in £lOOO to be of good behaviour or to b 3
imprisoned for six months. _