asked the Minister for Finance if he will state on what evidence the prosecution decided that the pigs being carried in the lorry D.Z. 2804 seized on the Monaghan-Tyrone Border were the property of the driver of the lorry and not that of the registered owner of the vehicle, and if he will further state why in this case this question was decided privately by the Revenue Commissioners rather than let go to open court.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Monaghan-Tyrone Border Seizure.
The question was decided on the statement of the driver of the lorry.
Does the Minister not agree that public confidence in the administration of the law would be more likely to be maintained if these questions were investigated in open court rather than privately by the Revenue Commissioners?
The man who is known as a pig buyer stated he bought the pigs and his statement was accepted.
To whom was the statement made?
That is not the information requested.
I am asking why this statement which has been accepted by the Revenue Commissioners was not given before an open court so that the public would be able to sift the evidence and decide themselves whether or not the law was being impartially administered.
The driver went into the box and swore he bought the animals and the district justice made a certain finding on that. I am not going to review that finding.
Will the Minister say why the people in whose name the lorry was registered did not appear there?
This is all a question about pigs. The Deputy apparently does not know the question he wanted to put.
It is a question of felonsetting.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the date of the seizure of the lorry D.Z. 2804 on the Monaghan-Tyrone border, how long the vehicle and its contents were held by the Revenue Commissioners, and what sum, if any, the owner of the lorry was asked to deposit with them pending the outcome of the court proceedings.
(1) The lorry and its contents (27 live pigs) were seized on 8th May, 1950.
(2) The pigs were sold on 9th May and the lorry was released on that day to Francis Macklin, on payment by him of a deposit of £50.
Facilities have been granted to this man that have not been granted to any other man in this State.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state at what stage in the court proceedings against Mr. Francis Macklin, Dublin Street, Monaghan, on charges of attempted smuggling, it was discovered that the vehicle in which the goods were being carried was registered and owned by a Mr. Patrick Macklin, of the same address, and if he will further state if there is any precedent for prosecuting the driver of the vehicle while the owner is not charged with the offence.
The answer to the first part of the question is "at no stage"; the answer to the second part is "Yes".
Surely the general public are entitled to know the facts on which the question was decided by the Revenue Commissioners.
We are now on Question No. 12. There is nothing about the Revenue Commissioners in this question.
There is. I want to ask the Minister to tell me at what date it was discovered that——
You did not ask that question. The Deputy asked at what stage in court proceedings a certain thing was discovered and I answered "at no stage".
The Parliamentary Secretary told me it was discovered subsequently.
——at no stage in the court proceedings.
I asked why it was that in the court investigation no query was addressed to anybody to discover in whose name the vehicle seized was registered.
That is a question that does not arise.
Would the Minister make a decent endeavour to tell the truth in this case?
If the Deputy would keep his head perhaps he would discover what he wants. He has lost himself in a series of questions.
This is the only case in which this has ever happened and I want the Minister to say——
This is completely disgraceful.
I want the Minister to tell me if in his opinion a director of the Agricultural Credit Corporation is entitled to different treatment from any ordinary citizen.
That does not arise out of the question.
A director of the Agricultural Credit Corporation had nothing whatever to do with the case.
This is the greatest swindle that has ever been perpetrated in this country.