THE EVICTORS AT WORK.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IX, Issue 429, 1 July 1881, Page 9

THE EVICTORS AT WORK.

The following account of an inquest held in the county Monaghan on Saturday, April 30, is taken from the Irish Times :—: — On Saturday evening, at about four o'clock, Dr. Reed, coroner for the county Monaghan, held an inquest in the townland of Drumbear on the body of a male infant, which was premature and dead . born. Much feeling was expressed at several attempts made to evict Thomas Stewart, the father of the child, from a small holding on the Rossmore estate. These attempts, it was alleged, caused the death of the infant, and left the mother still in a very dangerous and precarious condition. A jury of twenty-three having been sworn, Thomas Stewart was examined, and stated — I am the father of the infant the jury have just seen, and my wife was delivered of it this morning. Dr. William Woods and Mrs. Tracy, a certified nurse, were present when the child was born. The coroner here said that whatever statements Stewart wished to make with regard to the child he might now make them. He ! should say that that inquest was held under peculiar circumstances. There had been a deal of talk over the death of the infant, and he wished that the public should know the facts from the report made to him by the constabulary. He should like to have the sworn evidence, and let the matter be fully investigated. The inquest was merely to satisfy public opinion, and that was all the court had got to do. The witness then proceeded — I do believe that the harsh treatment of Lord Rossmore's clerk or agent, or whatever he may be, and other authorities, caused the death of my child. I can quote the expressions used. The foreman — Not Lord Rossmore's expressions 1 Witness — No, no ; but the expressions of Mr. John Johnston, under agent in Lord Rossmore's office, and the bailiffs, together with twelve or fourteen potato diggers, or Boycott men as they are now called. The comer — Now just adhere to the facts. The foreman — This is not the season for potatoe digging. The coroner — When did this occur? Witness — On Thursday last, the 28th April, Mr. Johnston, with, four men, went to the bedside of my wife. Mr. Johnston ordered her to rise up and dress herself, that she would have to leave the premises. About seven weeks ago, in the month of March, an ejectment decree was taken out against me because I was a couple of days behind in my rent. Mr. Johnston and the bailiffs visited my house then. My wife was then lying ill and was being attended by Dr. Woods. Mr. Johnston went to the bed on that occasion also, and told her to rise and dress herself. She was much agitated on that occasion. Mr. Johnston was more harsh on his second visit to my house. A juror — Who did he say would remove her ? Witness— The sheriff's bailiffs. Head-constable Haverty said that the sheriff had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The order which Mr. Johnston had on the second occasion was a petty sessions order for possession of the house only, and the bailiffs were special bailiffs. The witness said they were bailiffs, no matter in what capacity they were acting. The coroner — What were their names? Witness — Hasty, Latimer. Johnston, and I don't remember the other's name. Mr. Johnston ordered the men to remove my wife to the next house, and told her to get up. The bailiffs refused to touch her when they saw her condition, and left the house, Mr. Johnston also said that he was acting under the directions of Colonel Lloyd, and he would sue the law carried out. Johnston, the bailiff, told me he would not take £50 and lay a hand on her. A juror — Who ordered the men to remove her ? Witness — Mr. Johnston. Another jurer — Did these expressions irritate your wife or produce any effect on her ? Witness —They producsd a terrible effect, for she fainted off in the presence of Mr. Johnston and the bailiffs. I was obliged to use threats before they left my house. I said they would tie me up to the rooftree before one of them would lay a hand on her, for the la\y of God, the law of nature, and the law of the land compel me to protect my wife. A juror — All this occurred oa Thursday, the 28th April ?

Witness — Yes. On Friday, the 29th, the Boycott men came to my house, but they did not come in. They remained out on the street, but I'm sure my wife could hear them. The coroner — Did you know any of them ? Witness — I knew Tweedy, Stockdale, and Kane, but I did not know the others. I believe they would have done something on me only for Or. Woods, who told them that my wife was unable to be | removed. In conclusion, I again give it as my opinion that it was the acts of Lord Rossmore's men that caused the death of my child. Dr. William Woods was next examined, and sfated — Oa the 18th of M arch last, the day on which Mr. Johnston and the bailiffs paid their first visit, I visited Mrs. Stewart. She was in a very excited state, and threatened with premature confinement. I found also that she suffered from heart disease. I gave it as my opinion that the woman could not be removed without danger, and the bailiffs who were there went away. A juror — Do you believe Dr. Woods, that what occurred as stated by Stewart was calculated to put the woman in such a state ? Witness — I believe it would, but there are other causes. The juror — But we have no evidence of other cause-. Another juror — Did Stewart speak of the bailiffs ? Witness — He did. Mrs. Stewart attributed her excitement to the presence of the bailiffs, and to the fear of her husband doing something he might be sorry for. Head- Constable Haverly — Dsctor Woods, are you ia a position to say whether the child was alive on the 18th March 1 Witness — Oh, it was. Mrs. Stewart became comparatively well, and could have been removed without danger subsequently. On I Monday evening last I was again called to see Mrs. Stewart. I sent Mrs. Tracy to her that evening, and visited her myself on Thursday, but found no sign of approaching labour. The child was alive at that time. A juror — Did you think she could have been removed with safety that day ? Witness — The poor thing could not walk ; but she might have been removed in a covered car. On the 28th (Thursday) a messenger came to me and said that Mrs. Rtewart was very ill, and that the bailiffs were there again. On Friday morning, the 29tb, the woman became really ill. I drove to Drumbear at once. There were the bailiffs again. I told Mr. Johnston that the woman could not be removed, and I feared the child was dead. This was at eleven o'clock in the morning. I visited the woman at one o'clock, and again at four o'clock in the evening, and at that visit I told Mrs. Tracey to send for me under certain circumstances. She did send for me between three and four o'clock on Saturday morning the 30th. In about half an hour after a male child was born dead. It appeared to be a little over an eight months' child. I think it must have been about thirty or forty hours dead before the birth. It died from a partial separation of the placenta, and that commenced on the 18th March. That might be caused by a variety of things : oae of the principal causes is mental excitement. This was the evidence, and the jury, after an hour'B deliberation, found the following verdict :—": — " We find that the infant was dead born, and from the evidence brought before us we believe the great excitement in which the mother was before the birth contributed to that end."