THE INQUEST ON GIFFIN.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 46, 14 March 1884, Page 19

THE INQUEST ON GIFFIN.

(The Nation, January 19.) The inquest on the unfortunate young Orangeman, Samuel Giffin, who died from the effects of a bayonet wound inflicted on him by a policeman at Dromore on the Ist inst., was resumed on Tuesday morning in the Dromore petty sessions courthouse, before Mr. J G R. Porter, the county coroner. Mr. Moore, solicitor, represented the next of km, and Mr. Eeardon, Crown solicitor, represented the Crown The following report of the proceedings is abridged from Wednesday's John Dunlop, a tailor, residing in Omagh, was the first witness. He deposed that he had attended tbe Orange demonstration at Dromore on New Year's Day. He was in the field when Giffin was stabbed, and he was sure he could identify the policeman who did it. Robert Thompson was next sworn, and deposed that he was a farmer, and lived within half a mile of Trillic. In answer to Mr Moore he Btated that he took part in the Orange demonstration at Dromore, and saw a policeman make a " punch " with his bayonet at 'Giffin. Mr. Reardon.— Did any of your party break over towards the old road where the Nationalists were 1 Yes, they did. He would not be able to recognise the policeman who stabbed Giffin. Dr. Thompson was next examined, and deposed that he was walking along the road with the rest of the party, with Captain the Hon. Mr. Alexander. He described the positions occupied respectively by the Nationalist and Orange parties.

A Juror — Who were the attacking party f The Orange party were attacking the National party. Dr. Thompson then gave the particulars of several profession" T visits paid by him to Giffin. He gave it as his opinion that tbe people of the house in which Giffin was removed did all they could for him. In answer to a juror he said :— I heard the Nationalists and both parties did all they could for him. Mr Reardon — According to your evidence, this man received a l ' the attention he required from both Nationalists end Orangemen. Did you notice the paling of the field in which the Orange meeting had been held broken down? I saw it was broken down before the meeting commenced at all. It was broken down when I left. Did you notice that the paling on the opposite side of the road where the plantation is was also broken down ? Yes. And was it your party that broke the paling? Well, it was the Orange party. That was your party? It was the party I was with. Ido not call it my party. I think every loyal man should have been there. Well, we will not go into that matter. I think every loyal man should have obeyed the Lord Lieutenant, and stayed at home. About how many of your party attacked the Nationalists at the time I I cannot form an idea. A very considerable number — I should say a couple of thousand. Mr. Reardon— Go further along the road— what was the next disturbance ? The next disturbance was where the Orangemen went into the field between the roads. Mr. Reardon— -After you went on towards the railway station there was another attack made by Owueemen upon the Nationalist party? Yes. Was that an attempt to get across the fields between the two roads ? Yee. Mr. Ed. Archdale, Crocknacrieve, was the next witness examined. He said he attended the Orange meeting at Dromore with about 1,000 other people. To Mr. Beardon — At no time during the day was there any attack made on your party by the Nationalists 1 No. For what purpose was your party organised that day ?— Well, the purpose was an opposing demonstration here. You paid their railway fare ?— Yes, I did— Eome of it. Who paid the rest f— *ou must know. I don't know. In fact, I have not pai i a penny yet. Perhaps you gave an I 0 U ? (Laughter.)— No ; but I suppose the money will be paid. Did you give a voucher ?— I said I would be responsible. Then you gave no writing ?— I signed my name. You came here to oppose another demonstration ? — Yes. ; No more witnesses were called. Mr. Moore, on behalf of the next-of-kin, addressed the jury, and called on them to return a | verdict of " Wilful murder." Mr. Reardon said he would address the jury as practical men. He maintained that the wound from which Giffin had died was inflicted by a man who was simply discharging his duty. Mr. Archdale, with the candour they all expected from a gentleman of his lineage, admitted that his men several times broke away. It should be remembered that had there been no military or constabulary force there, it was the bounden duty of every man to assist in quelling a not ; and if he failed to do so in response to the directions of a magistrate, he was liable to severe punishment. The coroner then summed up. The jury,j ury, after a deliberation of one hour and a half, returned a verdict that Giffin died from peritonitis, the result of a wound caused by a bayonet, inflicted by a policeman. Sixteen jurors signed the issue-paper. Six were in favour of a verdict of wilful murder. Before he died the deceased, Giffin made a short deposition, in which he said :— I was stabbed by a policeman with his sword fixed to his rifle. I called "Help I" after being stabbed, and crawled up the "shough" of the field a short distance. I was not able to leave the " shough " i myself. I oannot tell the length of time I was in it. I became very weak. I had none of my friends with me. A whole lot of my own friends jumped over the ditch afterwards, and then ran away. I received a dangerous wound behind, from which I am now suffering. He was a tall man, of dark complexion, that stabbed me. The poor mill-boy, had reason to appreciate Catholic kindness. It appears that after being wounded he was carried and placed in the corner of a farmhouse. There he was left without even the comfort of proper bedclothes till the Catholic " enemy " came to his relief in the shape of a prominent Nationalist merchant, who supplied all the wants of the unfortunate dying stranger. Should this not be a lesson to the deluded dupes of selfish and inhuman landlords ?