Month: December 2020

Law Library Staff Member Leaves Bride at Altar, 1842

From the Dublin Monitor, 8 August 1842, an interesting account of an action for breach of promise brought by Maria Ormsby, of North Strand, against William Supple, a member of staff in the Law Library:

“Mr P Casserly, for the Plaintiff, said that he need not tell the jury, that a person holding office in the Law Library must, to a certain extent be respectable and no matter how humble in life was the situation of his client, the injuries to her peace of mind and youthful prospects were not to be disregarded. 

About three or four years ago, the defendant became acquainted with the plaintiff; when first he pressed his suit, the plaintiff, in the innocence of comparative childhood, treated his protestation as a joke, but the apparent earnestness of his manner and the continuance of his vows worked so intensely upon her youthful feelings that the love which she once thought the idle offering of the lip seemed to her as the offspring of a devoted heart. 

Time rolled over, and on one occasion lately he called to the mother’s house, and in the course of conversation, he stated that he was going to a wedding.  ‘Indeed!” said one of the family “It is time you should be going to your own.”   So ended the conversation on the subject that night, but, finally, he acted manfully and solicited the plaintiff’s hand from her parents. The plaintiff immediately set about making preparations for the nuptials, the wedding clothes were bought, the ring purchased, the respected clergyman of the parish was retained to perform the ceremony, but when the arrangements were complete, the bride habited in her marriage dress, and the clergy man actually waiting to discharge his office, no bride’s man was to be found.  Seven o’clock came, and, matters being at a stand sill, the father went to a tavern on Summerhill, where he found him carousing.  He charged him with neglect, and he answered the accusation by demanding no less a sum than £150 as a fortune, otherwise he would forbid the banns.

Mr Walsh addressing the jury for the defence described Supple as a young man subject to habits of intemperance, entrapped into an engagement with a girl in a humbler walk of life than that in which he was used to moving.  This young man was on a salary of 10 or 12 shillings a week, and damages were modestly laid at £100 – the object of the action plainly was to sell the girl to a certain extent in a court of law.

The jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of £10 plus costs.”

Perhaps because of the publicity arising from this case, Mr Supple seems to have been moved elsewhere fairly shortly afterwards.  He is described in The Dublin Almanac of 1847 as Keeper of the Rolls’ Court, residing at 12 Mary’s Abbey.  He still held this position in 1853, but after that there are no further references.

On the 9th June 1867, a William Supple of 6 West Liffey Street, Dublin, employed as caretaker of the reptiles in the Zoological Gardens, died after being bitten by one of the serpents (a python).  I wonder was it the same Mr Supple?

Miss Ormsby was described in the newspaper report above as ‘interesting,’ which was the euphemism of the day for a good-looking woman, and, indeed, Counsel for Mr Supple complained about her being dressed up in court for the sole purpose of impressing the jury.  I hope the damages helped console her for her disappointing wedding day!

Happy Christmas to all our wonderful Law Library staff!

Image Credit

Solicitor Delays Discovery to Protect Morals of Lady Typists, 1906

From the Mail, 15 August 1906:

“DUBLIN SOLICITOR AND HIS LADY TYPISTS

In the Probate and Matrimonial Division, today, in the case of Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald, known as the Waterford matrimonial case, Mr Rice applied on behalf of the male petitioner for an order directing Mr Shannon, the solicitor on the other side, to give the male petitioner copies of certain documents, discovery of which had been obtained so far back as the 25th July last

Mr Shannon said he had some difficulty in giving them copies of these documents on account of the fact that most of the type-writers in his office were young ladies, and he was very anxious for the morals of his lady type-writers (laughter).

Mr Justice Gibson – Could you not take copies yourself?

Mr Rice said they would be quite satisfied if Mr Shannon would allow them to send in their own typewriters to copy the documents in his office.

Mr Justice Gibson said perhaps Mr Shannon would object to have a bevy of strange typewriters, male or female, copying documents in his office (laughter). 

However, he would allow the application to stand until later in the day.”

The Fitzgerald divorce, involving Mr Fitzgerald, the owner of a Waterford mansion known as the Island, and his American wife, was heard by Lord Chief Justice O’Brien in December of the same year. 

Mrs Fitzgerald’s claim was that after the marriage her husband turned out to be a man of unmanageable passions and uncontrollable temper; he had dragged her violently out of the nursery down to her bedroom; told her that had he married a woman out of the gutter in England her accent would be more acceptable to him than her American accent, and left her and her maid on the platform at St Pancras Station and took the children away.  She had no money, and had to borrow a few pounds from her husband’s valet to get a place at a hotel. 

Mr Fitzgerald – who had previously objected to the divorce being heard in Ireland using a variation on the Duke of Wellington’s excuse that being born in a stable did not make him a horse – ultimately did not offer any evidence.  The divorce was granted.

Compared to the lurid details of most 19th century upper class divorces, there does not seem to have been much here to threaten the morals of young lady typists, but certainly a lot to put them off marriage!

Possibly the most creative excuse for not furnishing discovery ever?

Judicial Assassination Attempt at Corner of Leinster Street and Kildare Street Foiled by Observant Pensioner, 1882

From the Kirkaldy Times, 15 November 1882:

“A daring attempt was made to assassinate Mr Justice Lawson on Saturday night, in Dublin.  He had an engagement to dine at the King’s Inn and left his house in Fitzwilliam Street for that purpose.  The guard by which the judge has recently been always accompanied consisted of two members of the B division in plain clothes, and two army pensioners also in mufti.  On reaching Leinster Street, the judge kept the house side, and the two policemen kept close behind him.  The pensioners, on the other hand, kept almost parallel with him on the College side of the street, and it was very fortunate that they did so. 

His lordship had got opposite the large bay window of the Kildare Street Club when one of the pensioners, named McDonnell, observed a man go hastily across the street towards the judge.  Mc Donnell, rushing across the thoroughfare, seized the man as he had his hand in his coat breast pocket, in the act of pulling out a seven chambered revolver, which he had grasped by the handle. The judge, who had remained conspicuously cool in demeanour, was a witness of the whole proceeding; but as a crowd began to collect, he went into the club, where he remained for some time, and afterwards proceeded to the King’s Inn, where he dined with the benchers. 

At College Street police station, two experienced members of that division at once recognised the accused as an old acquaintance, by reason of his Fenian associates, and seeing there was no use in further concealment, he admitted his name to be Patrick Delaney.”

The location of the above event was just outside what is today the Alliance Francaise at the corner of Leinster Street and Kildare Street.

Mr Justice Lawson – who subsequently felt obliged to appear at the Louth Assizes to disprove newspaper accounts that he had suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of the attack – received so many messages of congratulation that he had to request that they cease in order to avoid drawing undue attention to the incident.

Delaney’s conviction for the attack was followed by a further trial and conviction for involvement in the Phoenix Park murders carried out earlier that year.   His choice of victim may not, however, have been purely political, Lawson having many years earlier sentenced him to five years’ penal servitude for a highway robbery of two ladies on the Rathmines road.    

Delaney – a somewhat mysterious character – subsequently turned State informant and was released from prison in 1889; nothing is known of his subsequent activities. Ironically his final words in the highway robbery trial had been ‘death to all informers.’ 

Charles McDonnell received a reward of £50 from the Lord Lieutenant for his work in preventing the assassination – a substantial, but hardly excessive sum, the value of a judge’s – or indeed any – life being of course immeasurable!

Image Credit: The Graphic, 18 November 1882.

Apprentice Solicitor Swordfight on Eve of Qualification, 1717

A very early Irish legal story, from Pue’s Occurrences, 31 January 1719:  

“About 3 quarters after 2 in the Afternoon, Mr Leigh, eldest Son of Richard Leigh Esq of the County of Westmeath, and one Mr Smith, Son to Mr Smith, at the Sun near Smithfield (who served his Time to an Attorney, and was to be Sworn an Attorney next day) Fought in the Tholsel of this City.  Mr Leigh was run into the Left Breast and died in a Minute after.  The same Night the Coroner’s Inquest Sate on his Corps, and brought in their Verdict that Mr Smith was guilty of manslaughter in his own Defence.”

At this date the Courts of Justice were still across the river at Christchurch. The Tholsel above, demolished in the early 19th century, was where Jury’s Inn now stands.

The 18th century was a time of swords as well as pistols.  On the night of the 21st February, 1757, the same publication reported that

“Mr Peter Kilkenny, attorney, was attacked in a Coach on Summer-Hill, by two Footpads, one of whom held the Horses whilst the other opened the Coach Door and presenting a Sword to Mr Kilkenny’s Breast demanded his Watch and Money, and swore would run him through if he made any resistance, on which he gave his watch and what money he had about him, and then they both made off.”

The Sun Inn, 7 Queen Street, Smithfield (now McGettigans below) was famous for horse sales and political agitation.  Next time you pass it on the way up to Blackhall Place, think of poor Mr Smith, whose legal career was presumably derailed by the above verdict. So many layers of history around these parts!

I wonder what the dispute was about?

Image Credit: Top (1) Top (2) Bottom

Bomb Outrages in the Four Courts, 1893

From the Globe, 7 May 1893:

“At about 20 minutes to 11 o’clock at night a serious explosion occurred at the Four Courts, Dublin.  The substance, whatever it may have been, and it is generally believed to have been glycerine encased in a metallic vessel, was evidently thrown by some person passing along the quay, who carefully selected the time, and kept a close watch on the movements of the police.”

The scene of the explosion, visited the following day by thousands of people. was the south west corner of the eastern quadrangle of the Four Courts, near the road railings and close to the chambers of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Johnson, Mr Justice Holmes and Mr Justice Murphy.  Thankfully no one was injured, but over three hundred panes of glass were broken.

The incident, had an interesting sequel, reported in the Dublin Evening Post of the following month.

“On the 2nd June 1893 Mr PA O’Doherty BL of 30 Mespil Road was walking through the Solicitors’ Building in the Four Courts when he found a large coffee canister on the ground, which he handed to a nearby policeman.  The canister was later examined by an explosive expert at Mr Samuel Boyd’s drug store in Mary Street, who said it was a detonator charged with fulminate of mercury.”

As an added touch, the canister contained some brown paper painted in watercolour with the words “Remember Judge Murphy.” Mr Justice Murphy had prosecuted in the Phoenix Park Murder trials, and the earlier explosion had taken place on the anniversary of the murders.

The Irish Independent stated that anyone who had trodden on the canister would have been killed on the spot, and that many additional lives might have been lost had it exploded when the courts had been sitting.   It was also suggested that the canister might have been lying in the rather dark passage for some time, having been left there to explode simultaneously with the earlier bomb. 

There were no more bombs in the Four Courts for another generation, although on one occasion a barrister succeeded in causing a mass exodus from the Law Library fire by dramatically flinging into it a mysterious but innocuous substance initially feared to be explosive. The case of Wilkinson v Downton comes to mind!

We all owe a debt of gratitude to quick-thinking and public-spirited Mr O’Doherty – one of the Irish Bar’s unsung heroes!

Image Credit: Dublin Evening Telegraph, 8 May 1893. The ‘X’ marks the location of the first device.