Brighouse & Rastrick Gazette. — 1889-01-26 (Brighouse, West Yorkshire, England)

CAPTAIN PLUNKET'S EVIDENCE.  The event of the day as far as evidence was concerned was the appearancein the witness-box of the celebrated Resident Magistrate, Captain Phinket. He said he had been a resident magietrate for nearly 22 years, having had experience in Longford, Sligo, Mayo, Meath, Cork, and Kerry. rhe resistance to evictions had grown to such an extent that at the present time the houses were barricaded, and boiling tar, hot water, and other dangerous matters were thrown out at the persons who tried to carry out the evictions. He had been present at evictions, certainly in two cases, in which the tenants told him they were able and willing to pay, but they were not allowed to do so. In most cases where resistance was offered the damage done to the house by barricading, &c., was considerably more than the amount in dispute. He was of opinion that 1882 was the worst year for outrages, but after that time when the League was suppressed there was an improvement. His experience was that there were generally outrages after meetings of the Land League had been held, and he had never heard of such things as Moonlighting or boycotting in connection with payment of rents, &c., till after the establishment- of the League. Since the Crimes Act of 1887 the condition of things had much improved. Cross-examined by Mr. Reid, Captain Plunket said he was a divisional magistrate, and had two districts under him at present in Cork and Limerick The resident magistrates were officials, , who, in cases of disturbance, were in command , of the police and the troops. He felt sure of the power possessed by the Land League, and whenever __a man was _denounced he invariably  suffered. Pressed to give instances of this, he ' quoted the cases of Mr. Herbert and Mr. Curtin, both of whom were denounced at Land League meetings and both of whom were subsequently murdered. He heard the Rev. Father O'Connor denounce those who went behind the backs of  their fellow tenants and paid their rent, and the people who were listenim.; cried out " Curtin." He bad private information as to the connettion of the League with crime. During the last two years he had received information from at least two persons on the subject. These two persons were.be believed,alive, but he did not know where they were. These persons had stated that they were present at meetings at which it was decided to commit certoin crimes. He had taken certain precautionary steps in consequence of this information, but he had not supplied  .• - the names of the informers to _anyone,. not even  his superior officers at Dublin Castle. That was a rule he made, that he never gave up the name of any person who gave information to him. He always paid the people wbo gave him information, when he found the information given him was correct. " Have any of these people been called in this trial up to the present?" "I must decline to answer," was the reply. The witness in reply to further questions expressed his opinion that the Moonlighters could hardly be called a secret society. He thought they were really the secret police of the League. He had never heard of Moonlighting before 1879. He admitted that he had seen a man named McDermott in Ireland, hut had not seen hirn in private. " I seldom look at any newspaper," he added. At the conclusion of his examinatim the Court rose.