asked the Minister for Defence whether he is prepared to grant compensation or ex gratia payment of any kind to Mr. Neil J. Treanor, who was shot and permanently injured on September 22nd, 1922, in Dundalk, by Thomas Carroll, an Intelligence Officer in the National Army; if he will say what the finding of the Military Inquiry into the incident, which was held on the 3rd January, 1923; or if he can in any way assist Mr. Treanor to recover the damages of £1,500 awarded against Carroll by a Dublin Sheriff's Jury on September 4th, 1923.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DUNDALK SHOOTING.
The question of compensating Mr. Treanor has been sympathetically considered, but I regret that it is not practicable to make any payment to him out of public funds.
The Court of Inquiry held to investigate the incident, found that the bullet which struck Mr. Treanor was accidentally discharged by Lieutenant Carroll, and that Lieutenant Carroll was guilty of gross negligence in carrying his revolver cocked in his pocket.
Lieutenant Carroll's military service was terminated on the 15th October last. In the circumstances, it is not feasible to assist Mr. Treanor to recover damages.
Arising out of that answer, I would like to ask the Minister if he has seen the report of the trial and the findings by a Dublin Jury, and if so, are they not in contradiction to the statements he has now made to the effect that the bullet was accidentally discharged?
I have seen the findings of the Dublin Jury and the report of the case.
Is it to be taken that an officer going into a public house is by that fact deemed to be not on duty?
Not necessarily by that fact. He was not on duty at the time he went into the public house.
Is it not a fact that Carroll was an Intelligence Officer, and by reason of that fact can be on duty anywhere?
Is it a fact that he is not on duty when acting illegally, and that he is on duty when acting legally?
Not necessarily.