I thought it would be much shorter to read the State Solicitor's case—that it would be more of a proof to the Minister that I am not dishing up stuff; that if this is dished-up stuff, it is dished up on behalf of the Minister by the State Solicitor. I think that is the shortest and the fairest way to deal with the case. His business could not have completely disappeared after the raid, but even if it had, and not a person came in and bought stuff, he had not sufficient stuff there to supply the Army. The State Solicitor also went on to say that on a sworn declaration they would show that only one small motor car came up to Mr. Hanley's door, and that the goods were thrown into that motor car and taken away in it. It was a Ford motor car, and no matter how they would succeed in getting the stuff into it, they certainly could not put £4,000 worth of drapery goods into it.
I will just quote a few lines from the accountant's evidence. He was a Mr. Saunderson, and he was sent down to inquire into the case when they were bringing on the prosecution. Mr. Saunderson said that in May, 1924, he was employed by the State to investigate the claim made by the accused. He asked Mr. Hanley if he could produce a balance sheet or profit and loss account for any period prior to 28th February, 1922, but Mr. Hanley refused or was unable to do so. He examined the stock sheets upon which Mr. Hanley based his claim, dated 28th February, 1922, and asked Mr. Hanley to produce invoices in support of certain of the prices charged in the sheets, and he found these dated back to 1919 and 1920. He was aware of a very considerable drop in prices in woollen and other goods in which Mr. Hanley dealt during the autumn of 1920 and the spring of 1921—a drop which averaged 50 per cent. He examined Mr. Hanley's prices generally, and found that they were the 1919-1920 prices. Taking Mr. Hanley's figures to be correct, he prepared an account allowing a gross profit of 25 per cent. on his sales. He was dealing with the purchases to prove his claim that Mr. Hanley had not the goods mentioned on the premises at the time. He said that the first of the purchases was made in September, 1919, and was for seven items for fancy suitings and Irish suitings to the value of £223 19s. 7d. These items were on page 6 on the declaration of the accused. The next invoice was dated 20th March, 1920, from the same firm. There were in that for Irish and fancy suitings a number of items amounting to £362 1s. 7d., which appeared at page 4 of the accused's declaration. He produced the third invoice from the same company (Messrs. Mack & Company) for £38 5s., dated 15th July, 1920.
Now, Mr. Hanley was claiming for all this stuff which he bought in 1919 and 1920, that he said he still had in his shop, and that he was carrying on business all the time he had them in his premises in Ballina when the raid took place, and they had disappeared in 1922. From that it appears that the defendant, in 1920, bought two lots of suitings, while he had on hands the suitings he bought in 1919, and that he had the three lots on hands, according to the stock sheets, on 28th February, 1922.
To put the matter shortly, the auditor sent up by the Government to inquire into the case, proved by Mr. Hanley's own figures that the value of the amount that was taken on the day of the raid in September, 1922, could not have been more than £65. That was the sworn statement of the accountant. The defendant was returned for trial to the circuit court in Mayo, and my information is—and I think I have it on fairly accurate grounds—that there was such an amount of wire-pulling brought on by Mr. Hanley and his friends in Mayo that the State thought it wise to have the venue changed to the Central Criminal Court in Dublin. Then after a little while the State, in spite of all that evidence, in spite of the case put forward by their own accountant that not more than £65 could have been taken, while Mr. Hanley had put in a claim for more than four thousand pounds, in spite of all that the Minister told me a few weeks ago, a nolle prosequi has been entered by the Attorney-General on the assumption that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the case. In addition to that there was the evidence of the gentleman who went to Mr. Hanley's house on that day, with two others, who were there to prove that they took from Mr. Hanley's house—this was given before the accountant gave his evidence— stuff valued between £60 and £80. That was their evidence, and I think it was quite clear that they were correct when the accountant came along afterwards and with Mr. Hanley's own figures proved that the amount taken must have been £65 worth. I do not see how the Minister can claim that there was insufficient evidence to prove the case. I am not bringing this on because I want Mr. Hanley rearrested and put into jail, but I want this case thrashed out seeing that I was prevented from getting the evidence through the Department of Justice, in a decent open manner, so that justice would be done. Either the gentlemen who went to Mr. Hanley's house during the civil war period committed perjury at the court or Mr. Hanley committed perjury. Either the case made by the State Solicitor was entirely wrong, Mr. Hanley is entitled to his claim for over £3,000 and the gentlemen who went and who are still available are guilty of perjury or the State Solicitor is right. It must be one way or the other. These things took place when it was popular for members of the Government Party, or the President's Party, as it might be called, to go about the country calling everyone associated with the Republican movement looters and robbers. That was quite the usual thing at that time as most Deputies will remember. At any public meeting addressed by the President if there happened to be any decently dressed young lady in the crowd, who did not agree with the ideas or the theories put forward by President Cosgrave, she was asked by him in the petty and mean way he has on public platforms where she got that hat or where she got that coat.
