Question. Have you met Corporal Fitzgerald at any of those meetings?
Witness (to President): I am very near tired, sir, answering questions.
President. If you are tired standing, you may sit down.
Witness. I met Fitzgerald at Barclay's and at Hoey's, but I cannot say how often; prisoner was present when I saw Fitzgerald at Barclay's. I knew him personally at the time. I cannot say whether I then spoke to him. At Corporal Chambers's trial I was asked to state, and did so, who were present at the meeting at Hoey's. I did name the prisoner as having been there.
Court here adjourned for the day.
Cross-examination of Private Foley resumed, on July 5.
Lance-Corporal Fitzgerald was present on the occasion when I said he was at Barclay's, at the time the conversation about Fenianism took place.
Lance-Corporal Fitzgerald was here confronted with the witness, and stated that he did swear that he met the prisoner at Hoey's and at Pilsworth's, but not at Barclay's. Private Foley would not be swearing what was true if he swore that he (Fitzgerald) made a speech on Fenianism at Barclay's, or was present at a conversation there about electing a president, "when we would have a free republic."
To the President:
I was never at Hoey's public house in the prisoner's company, but I was there two or three days after his arrest, when a man named Williams came up to the barracks and told me there was to be a Fenian meeting at Barclay's. On the 13th of January, prisoner absented himself, and on the 14th inst. (Sunday) he was taken from the barracks by a detective policeman.
To the Prosecutor:
I have never made a speech on Fenianism to my recollection, at Barclay's. I might have said things when I was drunk that I would not answer for afterwards. I swear positively that I was never present on any occasion when there was talk of electing a president of a republic. I might have been present at such conversation and not know anything about it.
Prisoner contended that this evidence should have been given in direct examination but was not admissible in cross-examination.
The prosecutor contended that the witness, who was recalled by the prisoner, for the purpose of confronting him with another, was not asked anything that was not perfectly fair and proper for the purpose of eliciting the truth.
