Swansea and Glamorgan Herald, and South Wales Free Press. — 1889-05-22 (Swansea, West Glamorgan, Wales)

PARNELL COMMISSION.  The examination of John-Monaghan from Oug,hterade, m Galway, was continued at the Parnell Commission on Wednesday morning. He spoke again iof the distress which he had witnessed in Ireland, and in cross-examination admitted that what ho said about fines being inflicted on tenants on an estate in Galway was general rather than personal information. Father Egan, parish priest of Donery, Loughrea, gave evidence as to the poll' tical and social condition of his district. Father Egan denied that at any time during the regime of the Land League was there, with the exception of Lintan's murder, a serious crime in the Woodford locality with which he was acquainted. He repudiated the insinuation that when the Blake murders took place he showed any want of sympathy with the relatives. In the cross-examination about the difficulty there was in burying Finlay the bailiff, he said, did not think it his duty to get a coffin. The reverend gentleman was questioned at some length upon his conduct with reference to the funeral of a process-server named Finley. A difficulty was found in getting a coffin, and he and Father Coed were asked by a police-sergeant to help in securing the coffin. They did not give their services because they were not properly approached, and because they thought a coffin could be got without any difficulty from some other place. Michael Mclnery, a Dublin barrister, stated that he hail frequently been employed in cases where claims for injuries were made. He stated that in the case of Linton no compensation was allowed because the crime did not proceed from political or agrarian causes. Mr. John Roche, from Woodford, gave their lordshi?s an account of the formation of the Woodford tenants' defence association, which, in his opinion, prevented the tenants from ejecn. The court rose about four o'clock.  of John Roche, from  Woodford, in Galway, was proceeded with by theAttorney-General at the Parnell Commission, on Thursday morning. He alleged that previous to 1885 the tenants on the Woodford estate were certainly in arrears, but repudiated the notion that he ever advocated, the acceptance only of N ' per cent. Of a person known as Dr. Tully, and of that person's much talked about pills, he said that both were perfectly harmless and inoffensive. I Roche remembered that there was an explosion I at the residence of a landed proprietor named Lewis who lived near Woodford, but he did not know who caused it. He admitted that he was present at the evictions of Saunders Fort, and very likely he praised the people for offering a strong resistance to the evictors. If there was any boycotting about Woodford he could say that he was boycotted wholesale by the landlords. In re -examinationthe witness said lie could give instances of harshness by Mr. I.4lriti, landowner, towards his tenants. With a view of saving time Mr. Ettict proposed to read the judgment al Chief Baron Pa..flaa lathe caseof Joyce v. Clanriearde. The President did not think it could be accepted as evidence, but would give it weight. It was then agreed to obtain an authorised version of the Chief Baron's judgment. Patrick lieary„ merchant, Woodford, was the next witness. In suketanoe they practically corroborated the evidence given by Roche with a few differences of no importance.  Fatherf White, Miltown, Walby, spoke of the state of opinion and the condition of the people there in recent years. He was, he said, president of the 10(.1 branches of the Land and the National League, and he was always opposed to boycotting. There were boob in , connection. with the League but he could not find ' , them.