asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that a decree for £65 and £8 17s. 3d. costs was given by the Circuit Court Judge against Motor Dispatch Rider John Doyle (No. 12977), Army Signal Corps, in favour of John Farrell, 4 Hanover Square, Dublin, in respect of injuries received by being run down; that the Army authorities refused to pay this amount and refused to give any information as to the whereabouts of this dispatch rider, and whether he will now reconsider the question of compensating Mr. Farrell, in view of his disability.

I am aware that arising out of civil proceedings in the case judgment in favour of Mr. Farrell was awarded by the Circuit Court Judge. Acting on legal opinion obtained in the case, no liability was admitted by the Military Authorities. The name and address of the dispatch rider were furnished to the plaintiff's solicitors, and it would appear that the civil bill was duly served. It is not proposed to make any payment out of public funds in respect of the decree made by the judge.

Arising out of the first part of the answer, I wonder if the Minister is aware that the plaintiff's solicitor denies that the name and address of the despatch rider were furnished. In fact, he stated definitely that they were not.

The Adjutant-General, on the 5th October, 1925, wrote to Mr. Lane-Joynt, the solicitor for the plaintiff, informing him that the defendant was then quartered in Collins Barracks in the Army Signal Corps.

In a letter received on 11th May, 1927, Mr. Lane-Joynt said that he did not receive that.

The Deputy can argue it out somewhere else.

Would I be entitled to ask what the reason is for differentiation in this case and an almost similar case that happened four years ago? In that case a man was killed by a military lorry and the military accepted responsibility and paid the compensation.

There was a very great difference.

Who was in the car?

The solicitor in the case said that a man named Stapleton had been driving a car in which was Mr. O'Hanlon, the Secretary of the Farmers' Union, and he suggested that that was the reason the compensation was paid.

No, sir.