FOE 
 
 ®I n fUlatintts of tlj0 ^nblxc 
 
 IN THE 
 
 DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 * 
 
 •fc 
 
 POLICE FORCE. 
 
 THE ADMINISTRATION OE THE LAW. 
 
 EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Action of the Executive with reference thereto. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 THE FREEMAN’S JOURNAL, LIMITED, 
 
 PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING WORKS. 
 
 18 8 9 
 

3 
 
 m 1 S n_ 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 TO THE HONOUEABLE MEMBERS OF THE 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I beg most respectfully to submit to you particulars 
 of cases of injustice suffered by Mary Anne Smyth and 
 myself by the maladministration of the law in Ireland. 
 
 The brief statements annexed merely give some of the 
 leading facts. You will observe that from the first act of the 
 arrest of an innocent girl to the present time covers a period 
 of over two years, during which I have endeavoured to 
 obtain redress, having been invariably refused by the several 
 departments, as shown in the correspondence. 
 
 Miss Smyth is the daughter of a respectable gardener ; she 
 had been engaged for some' years, until her arrest, as an 
 assistant teacher in the St. Mary’s Convent School, Kings¬ 
 town. I am a clerk to my father, and had an amateur 
 workshop next Smyth’s house. Being under obligations for 
 civilities, I made a present of the cape referred to. The 
 defendants maliciously ascribed the giving of the present to 
 an immoral motive, in aid of their defence. 
 
 Miss Smyth’s character being thus assailed in private, and 
 in a crowded Court in presence of the Recorder of Dublin, I 
 felt bound to sustain her innocence, which has so far cost me 
 over £100, and unceasing exertion. 
 
 I can prove that we have been illegally defeated in the 
 actions before the Recorder’s Court, and now appeal for your 
 interest to obtain a full and searching inquiry into all the 
 circumstances of the cases, and the acts of every officer of the 
 Crown and the legal profession concerned in them. 
 
 A 53449 
 
4 
 
 The Parliamentary questions in this correspondence were 
 asked on behalf of Smyth by or for Sir Thomas Esmonde, 
 Bart., the county member. I applied to the County Con¬ 
 servative Registration Office in Dublin to be informed of a 
 member of Parliament to represent me, which has not been 
 done, so that I am now obliged to place the case in this way 
 in the hands of hon. members, in the hope that some gentle¬ 
 men will take an interest in this matter of such public im¬ 
 portance, affecting the administration of justice in Ireland. 
 
 Humbly trusting that you may be pleased to give your 
 influence to obtain such an inquiry as will, as far as possible, 
 have powers to give compensation for causes proved. 
 
 The action of the authorities in this matter has been inde¬ 
 fensible. My family came from Glasgow to Kingstown over 
 half a century ago, and it is well known that there never has 
 been any cause for a shadow of suspicion to warrant the 
 illegal and tyrannical action of the police, which has been 
 approved, certified, and rewarded by promotion, with the 
 marked approval of the highest executive authority. 
 
 The aid of the Scottish members is confidently asked to 
 defend the son of a Scotchman insulted in Ireland, and to 
 obtain the redress to which he is legally entitled. 
 
 A figure stands over the main entrance t Dublin Castle 
 holding an evenly-balanced scales, emblematic of equal justice 
 between the Crown and the subject. Let the holding of an 
 inquiry, in the spirit in which this is asked, show the people 
 of Ireland that it is a fact, and not a fiction. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, Gentlemen, 
 
 Your humble and most obedient servant, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 Monkstown, Dublin, 
 
 21 st February, 1889. 
 
ABRIDGED STATEMENTS 
 
 OF THE CASES OF 
 
 MART ANTE SMYTH v. EMILY F. MADDEN AND 
 POLICE CONSTABLE JAMES CURRY, F. DIVI¬ 
 SION, DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE; 
 
 ALSO 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS t>. JAMES CURRY, 
 POLICE CONSTABLE. 
 
 “A policeman ignorant of his powers and duties is worse than useless: 
 he is sometimes a dangerous member of society.’’— Reed's Policeman's Manual. 
 
 Respectfully Sheweth, 
 
 That on the 19th August, 1886,1 purchased a fur cape from. 
 Arnott and Company, Henry street, Dublin. On the same 
 day I gave the cape to Miss Mary Anne Smyth, Monkstown. 
 On the 23rd December, 1886, Constable Curry (not in uni¬ 
 form), having been instructed by Miss Madden, called upon 
 Miss Smyth, and demanded to be given a sable cape. Miss 
 Smyth produced her cape, and stated it was not a sable one. 
 Constable Curry took it and gave it to Miss Madden who 
 was waiting near with two other persons. He then called 
 on me, and asked if I gave Smyth a cape ; I told him I did, 
 where I purchased it, and had a receipt. On learning from 
 him that Miss Madden stated it was her cape, and that he 
 had seized it, I went to Smyth’s house, where I met Curry. 
 He pressed me to admit it was Madden’s cape. He then 
 arrested Miss Smyth. When I strongly remonstrated with 
 him he ordered me “ not to interfere with him and his duty.* 
 He took her along the main road through Kingstown, toward 
 the police-station, near which he met Constable Briereton, 
 with whom he left Smyth in charge, while Curry went into a 
 draper’s shop to inquire if the cape was a sable one, when he 
 
6 
 
 was informed that they could not say. On coming- out, he 
 told her she might go home, thus illegally discharging his 
 prisoner without bringing her to the station and preferring 
 the charge against her. While on the way from Monkstown 
 to Kingstown he pressed Smyth to admit it was Madden’s 
 cape. Smyth said she would swear it was her cape. Curry 
 said she would not be allowed to do so. Curry also said that 
 “ Downs thinks himself a great fellow, but he need not try 
 to crow over him, because he crows with bigger birds than 
 he does,” doubtless meaning the high official influence that 
 he calculated upon supporting his action. Curry, imme¬ 
 diately afterwards, lodged the cape at the station as Miss 
 Madden’s property. Later on, the same evening, Curry 
 called on my father, seeking for information for my prose¬ 
 cution. He subsequently called on me to see Arnott and 
 Company’s receipt for the cape, of which he took a careful 
 copy, at the same time told me I was to be prosecuted by 
 Miss Madden. Curry brought back the cape to Miss Smyth 
 the next day, and told her “ the ladies took very lawful 
 means to get their cape, and they did not care for her or 
 anyone.” Miss Madden having refused to apologise and 
 make any reparation, proceedings were commenced on the 
 14th January, 1887, against Miss Madden and Constable 
 Curry, for £500 damages, for “ slander and false arrest,” in 
 the Court of Exchequer. On the affidavits of the defendants 
 the case was remitted, unopposed by the plaintiff, to the 
 Quarter Sessions, Kingstown, where it was beard before the 
 Hon. the Recorder, on the loth April, 1887, with a jury of 
 six, one of whom was subsequently found to be a police pen¬ 
 sioner. The Recorder did not open the court on this occa¬ 
 sion until 12.30. 
 
 The case came on at 3.15. His Lordship remarked that 
 “ he did not know any of the facts of this case.” Miss Smyth, 
 the plaintiff, gave evidence of the facts of the case, and was 
 cross-examined (by the ruling of the Recorder), on matters 
 wholly irrelevant to the case, with the object of trying to 
 
 i 
 
7 
 
 defame her reputation. I was examined and cross-examined 
 as to the facts, which were fully sustained. 
 
 During the examination of Miss Smyth and myself, an 
 intimate friend of Miss Madden sat on the Registrar’s seat 
 near the witness-box, writing notes on slips of paper, which he 
 passed along the seat to the Registrar, who read them, then 
 passed them as unobservedly as possible on to the Recorder’s 
 desk, who, having read them, put them in his waistcoat 
 pocket. 
 
 Constable Curry deposed that Miss Madden failed to iden¬ 
 tify the cape, and his duty was ended, which is contrary to 
 Miss Madden’s and his own affidavits; and that he never 
 arrested the plaintiff; and further, that when he was about 
 arresting Miss Smyth, that “ He stood on my toes and jostled 
 me, and that I caught him by the shoulder and gave him a 
 good shaking ” (which is a malicious untruth). The Recorder 
 remarked, “ that he did perfectly right.” He swore that the 
 receipt I showed him was defaced (insinuating I had got a 
 later receipt to adapt it for the cape). On the receipt being 
 handed to him, he said, “ on my oath that is not it,’’ Being 
 pressed by counsel, he admitted “ it was it.” The Recorder re¬ 
 remarked “to be more careful; but it was not material ” (a 
 very singular remark for the Recorder to make about the best 
 evidence it was possible to produce, as to the cape being pur¬ 
 chased by me). In cross-examination, when asked why he 
 went about like a sleuthound to hunt for information to try to 
 blacken her (Smyth’s) character, Curry said, “We did not; but 
 her character is black enough” (sensation in court) ; (I know 
 that from the 14th January to the 15th April he was busy 
 trying to collect malicious evidence, and had a number of 
 witnesses subpoenaed who were in no way connected with 
 the case, or could prove any thing)—and that he “could prove 
 one hundred and fifty more things against her.” Thoso 
 atrocious, illegal, and false statements made in a densely 
 crowded court were allowed by the Recorder without a word 
 
8 
 
 of censure. His evidence was given in the form of a con¬ 
 tinuous speech for twenty minutes. 
 
 Constable Briereton, with whom Miss Smyth was left in 
 custody, was examined on behalf of the defendants. He 
 admitted in cross-examination, “ I knew there was something 
 up.” Neither judge nor counsel made this prevaricating 
 witness tell what was up. 
 
 The Recorder at this point announced that he would dis¬ 
 miss the case against Madden, his Lordship coming to the 
 conclusion from Curry’s evidence, and disregarding the plain¬ 
 tiff's and my evidence. Counsel having addressed the jury, 
 the Becorder charged them in a lengthened address bearing 
 on the irrelevant evidence, and that it was “ Down’s action, 
 and the case should never have been allowed to come to 
 court,” and so on until near the close, when he expressed his 
 great regret that this young girl (the plaintiff) should have 
 lost her position, as he considered she was blameless in every 
 way. He could not, however, say as much on the part of Mr. 
 Downs, who had first tried to take the proceedings on his 
 own part. He considered that the action of the constable 
 was quite in accord with his duties as an important public 
 officer. Curry swore he had no suspicion of the girl (the 
 plaintiff), but he was not satisfied how Mr. Downs had come 
 by it, or how it came to the parties from whom he purchased 
 it. The matter for the jury was, however, had the policeman 
 the girl (the plaintiff) under arrest when going to the 
 draper’s shop, or was she going of her own free will. The 
 jury having disagreed twice, it was arranged between the 
 plaintiff’s solicitor and Curry’s counsel that a verdict should 
 be given for the plaintiff with 10s. damages, Curry to pay the 
 
 jury. 
 
 At the close of the proceedings I remarked that I was not 
 done with Curry yet. The Recorder said : “ I don’t think 
 you will make much of it.” 
 
 / 
 
9 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS AND REPLIES . 
 
 THE CASE OF CONSTABLE CURRY. 
 
 Mr. D. Sullivan (for Sir Thomas Esmonde)—I beg to ask 
 the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieuteuant of Ireland if 
 Constable Curry, of the F Division of the Metropolitan 
 Police, employed at Kingstown, had his costs paid out of the 
 Imperial Exchequer in the case against him by Mary Anne 
 Smyth, at the Quarter Sessions, held at Kingstown by the 
 Recorder on the 15th April last; if so, by what authority ? 
 and if any certificate was given to Constable Curry, exon¬ 
 erating him from any blame in the matter of his conduct 
 towards Miss Smyth ; and if so, by whom P 
 
 Colonel King-Harman said the costs of Constable Curry 
 were paid out of the public funds in the case alluded to. The 
 payment was sanctioned by the Attorney-General, on the 
 grounds that the constable had acted in the discharge of his 
 duty as a public officer. A certificate to the effect stated 
 was given by the Recorder of Dublin on hearing the case.— 
 Freeman , August 23, 1887. 
 
10 
 
 POLICE CONSTABLE CURRY. 
 
 Sir Thomas Esmonde asked the Chief Secretary to the 
 Lord Lieutenant what was the certificate given by the 
 Recorder of Dublin to Constable Curry, of the E Division, 
 Dublin Metropolitan Police, on the occasion of the trial of 
 the action, Smith v. Madden and Curry, at the Quarter Ses¬ 
 sions held on the 15th April, 1887, at Kingstown; also the 
 amount of the costs paid bv the Crown for the defendant 
 Curry, and whether the nominal verdict of ten shillings and 
 the fee to the jury is included therein ? 
 
 Mr. Balfour—The Commissioner of Police informs me that 
 the costs referred to amounted to £13 6s. 10d., which in¬ 
 cluded the sum of 10s. 6d. awarded in damages, and after¬ 
 wards, by direction of the Recorder, given to the jury. With 
 reference to the certificate, I am informed that application 
 has already been made for a copy of it, with a view to its 
 use in private litigation, and that it has been on this ground ; 
 and under those circumstances I do not think I should state 
 
 the terms of the certificate on official authoritv here. — Irish 
 
 %/ 
 
 Times, June 22, 1888. 
 
11 
 
 STRANGE ACTION OF THE RECORDER OF 
 
 DUBLIN. 
 
 Sir T. Esmonde asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord 
 Lieutenant of Ireland to state the reason why the Honour¬ 
 able Recorder of Dublin, in the action of Smyth v. Madden 
 and Curry, heard at the Quarter Sessions, Kingstown, on the 
 15th April, 1887, gave Constable Curry a “ special certificate” 
 “ exonerating” him “from all blame;” why and when did 
 the Recorder direct the amount of the verdict obtained for 
 the plaintiff to be paid to the jury ; and did the Superinten¬ 
 dent of Curry’s division, who was present during the trial, 
 make a report to the Commissioners of Police as to the nature 
 of the evidence; if so, was it sent forward with the certificate 
 given by the Recorder to the Attorney-General, who sanc¬ 
 tioned the payment of the verdict and costs out of the public 
 funds P 
 
 The Chief Secretarv said he was unable to state what the 
 
 i/ 
 
 Judge’s reasons were in the matter, nor had he the right or 
 the desire to inquire into them. The Superintendent’s report 
 was submitted to the Attorney-General.— Freeman, June 29, 
 1888. 
 
12 
 
 LEGAL EXPENSES OF POLICE. 
 
 Mr. E. Harrington (for Sir Thomas Esmonde) asked the 
 Chief Secretary for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what 
 rule of the police force or Act of Parliament the Attorney- 
 General sanctioned the payment out of the public funds of 
 the amount of the verdict and costs recorded against Con¬ 
 stable Curry, “on the grounds that he had acted reasonably 
 as a public officer,” in the action of Smyth v. Madden and 
 Curry, for slander and false arrest, heard before the Recorder 
 of Dublin, at Kingstown, 15th April, 1887 ; and upon what 
 authority did the Recorder alter the verdict subsequent to 
 the hearing of the case P 
 
 Mr. Balfour said it was a rule of the public service to pay 
 the legal expenses of police who suffered in the execution of 
 their duty.— Freeman, August 3, 1888. 
 
13 
 
 22 nd April, 1887. 
 
 Respected Sir, 
 
 I beg to ask that you will have the goodness to order an 
 investigation into the conduct of Constable James Curry, at¬ 
 tached to the Kingstown station, respecting the manner in 
 which he acted in the case of Miss Madden’s report of lost 
 cape, and his action with Miss Mary Anne Smyth and my¬ 
 self, but more particularly the veracity of his affidavit filed 
 in Court of Exchequer, and his evidence given at the Quarter 
 Sessions, Kingstown, held on the 15th inst., before the Hon. 
 the Recorder, in the action of Smyth v. Madden and Curry. 
 Awaiting the esteemed favour of your compliance with 
 request, 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your very obedient servant, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 To David# Harrel, Esq., Chief 
 Commissioner Dublin Metro¬ 
 politan Police, Lower Castle 
 Yard, Dublin. 
 
 Metropolitan Police Office, 
 
 The Castle, Dublin, 2Sth April , 1887. 
 
 1566 
 
 87 
 
 Sir, 
 
 With reference to your letter of 22nd instant, asking for 
 an investigation into the conduct of Constable Curry, Kings¬ 
 town station, I am directed by the Commissioner of Police 
 to state that, as the matter was very fully heard by the Re¬ 
 corder of Dublin in open Court, he does not conceive it to be 
 his duty to make any further inquiry. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. GOLDSMITH, Secretary, 
 
 A. J. Downs, Esq., Monkstown, 
 
 Dublin. 
 
14 
 
 THE CASE OF ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS 
 
 v. 
 
 CONSTABLE JAMES CURRY, F DIVISION, 
 DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE. 
 
 In consequence of the case of Smyth v Madden and Curry 
 having proved abortive, and the Commissioner of Police 
 havingjrefused to hold “an investigation into the conduct 
 and evidence ” of Constable Curry, which I contend that the 
 Commissioner should have granted according to the rules of 
 the service, I felt it incumbent on me to take this action to 
 clear the plaintiff’s and my character from the gross, false, 
 malicious, and illegal slanders uttered by Curry, which took 
 place under the following circumstances :— 
 
 Previous to the former trial, as already stated, Curry was 
 seeking for defamatory evidence against the plaintiff and my- ‘ 
 self, and for this purpose called on a neighbour of mine, 
 where he stayed two hours, and amongst other sayings, said, 
 
 “ That it would be a nice thing to go to a jury that Downs 
 was the bailiff of a thief,” and that he would “ prove Smyth 
 to be a liar, blackguard, and a thief.” 
 
 I commenced proceedings in the Court of Exchequer 
 against Curry for saying I “ was the bailiff of a thief.” On 
 defendant’s affidavit the case was remitted to the Kingstown 
 Sessions, which I opposed. The Hon. Justice Monroe re¬ 
 mitted the case, “ the defendant undertaking to plead only 
 the truth or falsehood of the slander,” i.e., “whether he used 
 the words or not.” It will be subsequently found that this 
 order was materially altered before being lodged with a 
 County Court officer. The case cameon before the Recorder, 
 at Kingstown, on the 31st October, 1887, before ajury of six, 
 he remarking that he “ dkFnotJmow anything of this case.” 
 
 I conducted the case personally, challenged three jurors, 
 which I had a legal right to do, but the Recorder over-ruled 
 my objections. My witness proved the words used by Curry 
 
15 
 
 to him. The Recorder non-suited me on the grounds that 
 the words complained of did not impute an indictable offence, 
 or that I should prove special damage. The jury by direc¬ 
 tion found a verdict for defendant. 
 
 I now beg to particularly note that the order of Justice 
 Monroe was altered from u whether he used the words or not” 
 to “ the defendant undertakes not to rely upon a plea of 
 justification of the slander complained of.” 
 
 From this it will be seen that the judge’s order was substi¬ 
 tuted by a totally different one, which was lodged with a 
 Court officer by my solicitor. When and where this altera¬ 
 tion was made is one of the important subjects for inquiry ; 
 owing to it I lost my action for damages, my costs, aud had 
 to pay the defendants’ costs. The case was dismissed with¬ 
 out prejudice, and entered in the Court Book of the Clerk of 
 the Peace, I). W. P. A subsequent alteration was made in 
 blue pencil—‘‘dismissed on the merits,” which is an alteration 
 of the open court decision, the object being to defeat 
 my having a new trial; also a corresponding entry was 
 made on the decree, which I hold. 
 
16 
 
 2 Monkstown Crescent, 
 
 Monkstown, Dublin, 
 
 23 rd September, 1887. 
 
 Downs v. Curry, Police Constable. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 In the matter of this case, to be heard at the next 
 Quarter Sessions, Kingstown, I beg to inform you that I 
 will require the attendance of the undernoted police officers 
 as witnesses—they were serving in the F Division, Kings¬ 
 town, on the 23rd and 24th December last—and will thank 
 you to furnish me with their names for that purpose. The 
 names of all the officers who received and had custody of the 
 cape obtained by Constable Curry from Mary Anne Smyth, 
 on the 23rd December last, until it w r as given to the officer 
 who took it to Mr. Brooke Tyrrell, furrier, 82 Grafton-street. 
 Also the name of the officer who took it to Mr. Tyrrell, and 
 the name of the officer to whom it was returned. Likewise 
 the names of the following officers that were concerned in the 
 matter : No. 91 F, No. 8 Sergeant, Barrack Sergeant, who 
 were present in the office at 7.10 p.m. on the 23rd December, 
 and Constable Briereton. 
 
 I am, respectfully, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 To David Harrel, Esq., Chief 
 Commissioner, Dublin Metro¬ 
 politan Police, Lower Castle 
 Yard, Dublin. 
 
17 
 
 Metropolitan Police Office, 
 
 The Castle, Dublin, 
 
 3 rd October , 1887. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 1 am directed by the Commissioner of Police to inform 
 you, in reply to your letter of 23rd ult., that the cape to 
 which you refer was taken to Grafton-street for inspection by 
 P. C. 71 F (Michael Dunne), who returned it to Constable 
 Curry. It does not appear to have been in the custody of 
 any other policeman, except that it was temporarily left in 
 the Kingstown Police Station whilst Sergeant John Gordon, 
 8 F, was in charge. 
 
 No. 91 F is named Patrick M‘Cabe ; and the “ Barrack,” 
 or Staff Sergeant, is John Canavan. 
 
 No. 2 F (Constable Briereton) resigned the service in June 
 last, and his present whereabouts is not known. 
 
 I am to add that members of the force are never directed 
 by the Commissioner to attend trials in civil cases ; they are 
 invariably served with subpoena in the ordinary way. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. GOLDSMITH, Secretary. 
 
 To Mr. A. J. Downs, 
 
 2 Monkstown Crescent, 
 
 Monkstown, Co. Dublin. 
 
 Note. —Owing to the Becorder non-suiting the case, I was 
 deprived of the important evidence that could be given by 
 the witnesses. 
 
18 
 
 2 Monkstown Crescent, 
 
 Monkstown, Dublin, 
 
 8 th November , 1887. 
 
 Respected Sir, 
 
 I will be obliged by your furnisbing me with replies 
 to the following questions, which will be of importance to 
 future action in my case with Constable Curry and other 
 parties concerned :— 
 
 1. Was Constable Curry acting officially on duty when he 
 called on me at Monkstown Crescent on 23rd December last, 
 at 3.45 p.m., to ask me if I had given a fur cape to Mary A. 
 Smyth ? 
 
 2. Was Constable Curry acting officially on duty when he 
 called on Alexander Downs, 2 Monkstown Crescent, at 
 6.30 p.m., 23rd December last, when he asked him date of an 
 advertisement inserted for a fur cape lost by Miss Madden P 
 
 3. Was Constable Curry acting officially on duty when he 
 called on Miss Laura Wilton, 2 Sea View, Monkstown-road, 
 on the 23rd December last, between 6 and 7 o’clock, p.m., 
 when he asked her if she had made a silk bag for young Mr. 
 Downs, and the date of its being made P 
 
 4. Was Constable Curry acting officially on duty when he 
 called on me (Alexander James Downs), at 2 Monkstown 
 Crescent, on the 23rd December last, about 8.30 p.m., to take 
 copy of the receipt that I had produced at the police station 
 at 7.10 p.m. same evening, when he informed me that I was 
 to be prosecuted by Miss Madden, of Hollyville ? 
 
 5. Was Constable Dunne acting officially on duty when 
 lie, accompanied by Miss Madden, took the cape to Brooke 
 Tyrrell’s, furriers, Grafton-street, Dublin, for identification* 
 on the 24th December last ? 
 
 I am, respectfully, 
 
 ALEXANDER J. DOWNS. 
 
 David Harrel, Esq., 
 
 Commissioner of Police, 
 
 Dublin Castle. 
 
19 
 
 Metropolitan Police Office, 
 
 Xo 'PP The Castle, Dublin, 
 
 1 5 th November , 1887. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 1 am directed by the Commissioner of Police to acknow¬ 
 ledge receipt of your letter of 9th inst., and to state that he 
 declines to replj r to any of the queries contained therein. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. GOLDSMITH, Secretary. 
 
 Alexander James Downs, Esq., 
 
 2 Monkstown Crescent, Monkstown. 
 
20 
 
 LAST APPLICATION. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 Chambers, 98 Capel-street, 
 December 5th, 1887. 
 
 Downs a Curry. 
 
 Pay into this office by twelve o’clock Wednesday, 7th 
 inst., 14 pounds 17 shillings and 4 pence, being amount of 
 costs of Remitted Dismiss in this cause, to save the unpleasant 
 necessity of handing same to the Sheriff for execution, entailing 
 additional expenses and exposure. 
 
 We are, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servants, 
 
 EDWARD A. ENNIS & SON. 
 
 Note. —I received no former application. 
 
 Alex. J. Downs. 
 
21 
 
 2 Crescent, Monkstown, Dublin, 
 18^ May, 1888. 
 
 Respected Sir, 
 
 I beg to address you, as the superior authority over 
 the Dublin Metropolitan Police, to request that you will 
 have the goodness to direct that a copy of a certificate be 
 sent to me, which was given by the Honourable Recorder of 
 Dublin, at the Quarter Sessions held at Kingstown on the 
 15th April, 1887, in the remitted action of Symth v. Madden 
 and James Curry, police constable. 
 
 I was a witness in the case, and require it that I may see 
 how far it affects my character and public justice. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 To The Right Honourable 
 
 The Chief Secretary for Ireland, 
 
 The Castle, Dublin. 
 
 Dublin Castle, 
 
 10677 2 oth May, 1888. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge 
 the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, and to acquaint 
 you that the certificate given by the Recorder to Police Con¬ 
 stable Curry, in the case of Smyth v, Madden and Curry, is 
 not a record of this department, and that His Excellency 
 sees no reason for his interference in the matter. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 f. i. c. Your obedient servant, 
 
 W. RIDGEWAY. 
 
 Mr. Alexander J. Downs, 
 
 2 Crescent, Monkstown. 
 
22 
 
 2 Crescent, Monkstown, 
 
 Dublin, 8 th October , 1888. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I beg to request that you will have the goodness to 
 furnish me with a copy of the certificate given by the Hon. 
 the Recorder to Constable Curry in the action of Smyth v. 
 Madden and Curry, heard at Kingstown Quarter Sessions, 
 15th April, 1887. I make this application for the purpose 
 of having the certificate cancelled, and the costs illegally 
 paid thereby refunded to the public funds in the interest of 
 the ratepayers. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 David Harrel, Esq., Commis¬ 
 sioner of Police, Dublin Castle. 
 
 Note.— To this communication I received no reply. 
 
 Alex. J. Downs. 
 
2 Crescent, Monkstown, Dublin, 
 lQth October , 1888. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I beg respectfully to ask that your lordship will be 
 pleased to order that the name of the young gentleman who 
 sat on the Registrar’s bench near the witness-box, writing 
 notes, during the evidence of the plaintiff and myself, in the 
 remitted action of Smyth v. Madden and Curry, heard before 
 the Hon the Recorder, at Kingstown Quarter Sessions, on 
 the 15th April, 1887, be furnished to me. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 
 Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 The Right Honourable, 
 
 The Lord Chancellor, 
 
 Four Courts, Dublin. 
 
 Four Courts, 
 
 17 th October , 1888. 
 
 Sm, 
 
 I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to acknowledge 
 the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, and to say that 
 his Lordship knows nothing of the person or the matters you 
 refer to. Any application you have to make should be made 
 to the Recorder. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 WILLIAM M. JELLETT, 
 
 Private Secretary. 
 
 Alex. James Downs, Esq. 
 
24 
 
 2 Orescent, MonkstowD, 
 
 Dublin, 20 th October , 1888. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I am favoured with your esteemed reply to my letter of 
 16th instant, and now beg to say that I had already applied 
 to the Recorder’s Registrar, who did not give me the infor¬ 
 mation I desired. As it will be of importance for a report 
 that I intend to make to your Lordship, to have the name of 
 the gentleman who was writing the notes and passing-them 
 to the Registrar, who placed them on the Recorder’s desk, I 
 hope your Lordship will be pleased to obtain the information 
 I ask. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 
 Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 The Right Honourable, 
 
 The Lord Chancellor, 
 
 Four Courts, Dublin. 
 
 Note. —To this I received no reply. 
 
 Alexander J. Downs. 
 
25 
 
 The Most Noble Charles Stewart, Marquis of London¬ 
 derry, Lord Lieutenant-General and General Governor 
 of Ireland. 
 
 The Memorial of Alexander James Downs, 2 Crescent, 
 
 Monkstown, Dublin, 
 
 Humbly Sheweth, 
 
 That on the 19th January, 1888, statements of the cases 
 of Mary Anne Smyth v. Emily F. Madden and James Curry, 
 Police Constable, F Division, Dublin Metropolitan Police, 
 and Downs v. Curry, were forwarded to the Light lion, 
 the Chief Secretary, to which your Memorialist was favoured 
 with reply No. 1705, dated on the 26th. 
 
 Your Memorialist now most respectfully craves that your 
 Excellency will be pleased to order a full and searching pub¬ 
 lic inquiry, on oath, at the Courthouse, Kingstown, into 
 these cases, which appear to be a series of remarkable inci¬ 
 dents, resulting in defeats of justice, and your Memorialist 
 respectfully submits some of the principal subjects for 
 investigation :— 
 
 That during the hearing of the remitted action, Smyth v. 
 Madden and Curry, for slander and false arrest, heard before 
 the Hon. the Recorder, at Kingstown, on the 15th 
 April, 1887, a gentleman known to be an intimate friend of 
 the co-defendant, Madden, sat on the Registrar’s bench, writ¬ 
 ing notes during the evidence of the plaintiff and your Me¬ 
 morialist as a witness, which are believed to have had refer¬ 
 ence to the evidence. 
 
 These notes were passed by the writer along the seat to the 
 Kegistrar, who, having read them, stood up and placed them 
 on the desk before the Recorder, who took them up and read 
 them. 
 
 Into the veracity cf the affidavit and the evidence given by 
 Curry at the trial. 
 
 That the verdict of 10s. nominal damages given by consent 
 to the plaintiff, Smith, was, by direction of the Recorder, 
 
26 
 
 misapplied to payment of the jury, the verdict being 
 Curry was to pay the jury, and 10s. damages. 
 
 Into the malicious statements respecting your Memorialist 
 made by the Recorder during the hearing of the evidence, 
 and in his charge to the jury. 
 
 Into the granting of the ‘‘special certificate ” by the 
 Recorder to Constable Curry, “ exonerating him from all 
 blame,” notwithstanding that the evidence proved culpable 
 negligence, unwarrantable, malicious, illegal, and in making, 
 atrocious statements in his evidence ; and that your Memo¬ 
 rialist believes that this certificate contains imputations of a 
 defamatory nature to his reputation. 
 
 Your Memorialist has learned that the costs incurred by 
 Curry have been paid by the Crown, which your Memorialist 
 can prove to have been an illegal payment. 
 
 Into the reasons why the Commissioner of Police refused 
 
 %* 
 
 to hold an investigation into the conduct of Constable Curry, 
 and the veracity of his evidence in the case of Smyth v. 
 Madden and Curry ; also, why the Commissioner subsequently 
 refused the application of your Memorialist for a copy of certi¬ 
 ficate given to Constable Curry by the Recorder. 
 
 That the order for the remission of the action (Downs z\ 
 Curry^) for slander, as issued by the Registrar ot the Court 
 of Exchequer, was not the same as that made by the ITon. 
 J ustice Monroe, owing to which your Memorialist lost his case, 
 and was adjudged to pay Constable Curry’s costs. 
 
 That a false entry was made on the Decree, viz., dismissed 
 “ on the merits,” and a corresponding alteration made in 
 the book of the Clerk of the Peace. 
 
 Your Memorialist also begs to inform your Excellency 
 that there are many subsidiary matters of considerable im¬ 
 portance as subjects for investigation. 
 
 That in order to have the inquiry effectively investigated, 
 your Memorialist be allowed the inspection of all books. 
 
27 
 
 reports, documents, rules, regulations, and copies of the 
 same that he may require. 
 
 Your Memorialist begs to ask that your Excellency will 
 order the attendance of all the officers under the control of 
 the Crown that he may require, and also the attendance of 
 the Counsel and Solicitors, with their clerks, hooks, docu¬ 
 ments, as the same will form a very important element in 
 the evidence. 
 
 Your Memorialist most respectfully hopes that your 
 Excellency may be pleased to grant the prayer of this 
 memorial, and your Memorialist shall ever be in duty bound 
 to pray, &c. 
 
 Dated this the 17th November, 1888- 
 
 I 
 
28 
 
 2 Crescent, Monkstown, Dublin, 
 
 1 7th December , 1888. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I forwarded to jour Excellency a memorial on the 
 17th ultimo, to which I have had neither an acknowledg¬ 
 ment or reply. The favour of during this week will much 
 oblige. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 
 Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 To The Most Noble 
 
 The Marquis of Londonderry, 
 
 Lord Lieutenant-General and General 
 Governor of Ireland, 
 
 Dublin Castle. 
 
 1 5th December , 1888. 
 
 3009 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge 
 the receipt of your memorial of the 17th ultimo, and to state 
 that His Excellency declines to comply with the application 
 therein contained. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 W. RIDGEWAY. 
 
 Mr. Alexander J. Downs, 
 
 2 Crescent, Monkstown, 
 
 Co. Dublin. 
 
29 
 
 2 Crescent, Monkstown, Dublin, 
 
 10 th December , 1888. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I beg to apply to you for an explanation of the 
 meaning of the letters “ D. W. P.,” which appeared in the 
 entry of No. 2 case, Downs v. Curry, in the book of the 
 Clerk of the Peace, used at the Quarter Sessions, Kingstown, 
 on 31st October, 1887. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 
 Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, 
 
 ALEXANDER JAMES DOWNS. 
 
 To The Right Honourable 
 The Lord Chancellor, 
 
 Four Courts, Dublin. 
 
 Note. —To this I received no reply. 
 
 Alex. James Downs. 
 
THE OATH OF A POLICE CONSTABLE OF THE 
 DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE. 
 
 I, A B, do swear, That I will well and truly serve our 
 Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of [as the case may 
 he], without favour or affection, malice or ill-will; that I 
 will see and cause Her Majesty’s peace to be kept and. pre¬ 
 served ; and that I will prevent to the best of my power all 
 offences against the same ; that while I shall continue to 
 hold said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, 
 discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law, 
 and that I do not now belong to, and that while I shall hold 
 the said office I will not join or belong to, any political 
 society whatsoever, or any secret society whatsoever, unless 
 the Society of Freemasons, 
 
 So help me God. 
 
 Note.— It will be seen from above the obligations taken 
 by police constables, and the reader can judge how far the 
 spirit of the oath has been observed in these cases.