Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Nov 1931

Vol. 40 No. 14

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Committal Order in Revenue Case.

asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that Mr. Frank Murphy, of 12 O'Neachtain Road, Drumcondra, who was recently released from Mountjoy, where he was detained arising out of a committal order on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners, was again arrested on Saturday morning, the 14th inst., at 6 o'clock, notwithstanding the fact that he was in possession of an admission form for Crooksling Sanatorium for Monday, the 16th instant; and if he will state details of the claims of the Revenue Commissioners against this man, and if he further realises the serious condition of this man's health, and if he is further aware that this man has a wife and two young children absolutely dependent upon him.

Frank Murphy was convicted at Dundrum District Court on the 4th of September last under Section 2 of the Betting Act, 1926, for acting as a bookmaker without a licence, a penalty of £500 mitigated to £125 being imposed by the District Justice. In default of payment he was arrested and committed to prison on the 14th instant. He was released on the 16th instant. I have no knowledge as to whether or not he was in possession of a form of admission to a sanatorium at the time of his arrest.

Murphy was previously convicted at Shillelagh District Court on the 1st of April, 1930, for a similar offence and a similar penalty was imposed. In default of payment he was arrested and committed to prison on the 4th of September last and was released on the 8th of October.

In addition to and distinct from the above-mentioned offences, Murphy owes a considerable amount of arrears of betting duty.

This man's health and family circumstances have been taken into consideration.

In view of the fact that the Revenue Commissioners have a claim against this man for unpaid revenue is he liable again to arrest and committal to Mountjoy?

I could not say.

Will the Minister take into consideration the health of this man?

If it had not been for that he would still be in prison.

Is the Minister aware that he had been in prison until a month previously and that his health is such that they could not help but know of his condition?

Top
Share