I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a few facts in connection with the case which was the subject matter of question No. 13 to-day. I consider these facts are of the very greatest importance. I have brought this matter forward in the interest of the widow and orphans of this soldier of the State who died while on service. The Minister, in the course of his reply to my question to-day, made certain observations upon which I would like to comment. Portion of my question indicated that this reservist, Thomas O'Grady, died from cardiac syncope due to haemorrhage from a rupture of the heart. The Minister stated that a court of inquiry was held and that the evidence adduced at the inquiry showed that Reservist O'Grady's heart muscle was diseased, apparently from a previous serious illness, and therefore that he did not die as a result of the injury.
I want to put certain facts before the Minister and the House. First of all, I want to point out that when a soldier goes on Reserve he is examined by the medical authorities attached to the Army and a certificate is given certifying that the man is fit for service on the Reserve. Again, when the reservist is called up for duty he is again examined by the medical people. If he is found fit for service he is sent on to do his month's training, and if he is found unfit he is sent home. I do not think that the Minister will argue, because I know it would not be correct to do so, that the medical people attached to the Army did not give this reservist, as they would give every reservist and every member of the Army, a thorough examination and, therefore, we must take it that he passed in physically fit when he was called up for training in the first week of August, 1939.
The Minister says that he did not die as the result of the injury received. I would like to draw his attention to the evidence given by Private Stackan at the coroner's inquest. Private Stackan, in reply to the coroner—it appears there was nobody appearing for the unfortunate relatives of the deceased soldier and therefore the witnesses were all examined on one side, as it were—said that the deceased and some other soldiers were wheeling a handcart returning from exercises at Ballyvaughan. Deceased and Private Duffy were behind and Privates Dempsey and Gaynor in front. All went well until they came out of a dyke. They were moving pretty quickly at the time when the cart overturned. It had struck a hump in the ground. It swerved and then turned over. A handle struck deceased, knocking him down. Deceased did not say he was hurt at the time, but continued for approximately one and a half miles.
Now, I presume that is what the Minister is going on. That was corroborated by Private Duffy. Then Doctor C. Maguire, whom I know—he was a member of the Army Medical Service—gave evidence that he carried out a post-mortem examination on the direction of the coroner and he found that death was due to rupture of the left ventricle of the heart, and as a result of the rupture there was haemorrhage into the pericardium. He went on to say that this might be caused by over-exertion. The jury found that the deceased died from cardiac syncope due to haemorrhage from a rupture of the heart.
I have made inquiries from a prominent heart specialist in the city and I would like to tell you his opinion. First of all, I want to point out that this unfortunate man was 37 or 38 years of age. He was examined when going on the Reserve and found fit for service. He was found fit in the first week of August and on the 28th August he died from this rupture, which I say was caused when he was struck by the cart. This eminent medical authority in Dublin assured me that a rupture of a ventricle of the heart rarely takes place even in the most advanced form of a diseased heart and that the only time a rupture of a ventricle of the heart takes place is when there is a crushing stroke given on the breast and immediately afterwards there is another one on the back—in other words, when a person is hit in front and is violently thrown on the ground on his back, that causes a rupture of the ventricle.
On that point, I submit that the evidence is quite the other way from what the Minister alleges; that the evidence all goes to show that this man died as the result of his injuries. The Minister tells me that a court of inquiry has found otherwise. I know the strength and the value of courts of inquiry. If the court of inquiry found that this man did die as a result of the injury and the coroner's inquest found something else, the Minister would say he was not bound by it and I submit he is not bound by it in this case because the evidence at the inquest was given by the doctor who carried out the post-morten and there was evidence given by two people who saw the accident. There is evidence that O'Grady was in the best of form prior to the accident and he was in a state of collapse immediately after it occurred. I therefore submit that in the interests of justice the Minister should exercise the authority that is vested in him by this House to give to the widow and orphans of this soldier of the State the compensation to which in equity they are entitled.
