While the jury empanelled to try the case of Michael Lynot, charged with committing an aggravated assault on Pat Sexton, were locked up considering their verdict, Judge Hayes came into court on Monday night, at ten o’clock, to ascertain whether they had agreed. The jury having been sent for, the Foreman informed his lordship that there was not the slightest chance of their agreeing, when the judge expressed his regret at being obliged to leave them in charge of bailiffs all night.
The Foreman made a strong appeal for refreshments, and succeeded in obtaining an order upon the sheriff for a supply of fresh spring water fresh from the court pump. Five tin vessels, supposed to be full of this cooling beverage, were shortly borne to the jury-room door by the messengers of the court-keeper, and had well-nigh been introduced inside, when a curious police constable removed the very handsome plates which covered the vessels for the purpose of preserving the contents from dust. The careful officer found this full, but not entirely with water, as a fishing examination of the interior was rewarded by the discovery of several bottles containing liquid of a more stimulating quality.
The production of these before his lordship and the court created a lively sensation. An inquiry was immediately instituted by his lordship to ascertain the author of the violation of his order, but as nothing of a definite character could be elicited, he was pleased to order merely that the bottles and their contents, supposed to be good Islay, should be confiscated to the use of the county. The disappointment of the jury at the seizure of their reliefs was beyond description – and such was the effect upon one of the besieged, that he was afterwards seized with jury-room fever, and kindly discharged by the judge, with the other eleven, at two o’clock in the morning. The Sligo Chronicle.“
A St. Patrick’s Day miracle sadly frustrated! Islay is an excellent Scotch whisky made in the Inner Hebrides with a characteristic peat-smoke aroma, Laphroaig for instance, or Craighleachie.
Jury room fever can be a trying complaint! I hope the sufferer recovered quickly!
The State Trial of Daniel O’Connell and John Gray, in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Four Courts, February 1844,
From the Sun (London), 1 February 1844:
“The Irish State trials were resumed on Tuesday, when Mr Fitzgibbon QC, appearing for Mr Gray, said that the doctrine of conspiracy, as laid down by the Attorney-General, was that it was a combination of two or more persons to do an illegal act, or do a lawful act through unlawful means. He had looked in Coke, and all the old authorities on the subject, without being able to discover any such doctrine. The people met in large numbers, but it was by such means that redress of grievances was always obtained. He referred to the means adopted by the mailed Barons of England when the great charter of England’s liberties was wrested from King John, and to the attitude assumed by the people at the time of the Clare election.
Mr Fitzgibbon QC afterwards commented, in very strong language, on the conduct of the Attorney-General with regard to the prosecutions. He did not object to his doing his duty, but he ought to do so in a manly and straightforward manner, and not state the law incorrectly to obtain the conviction of a brother barrister, who had been an ornament to his profession for many years. This was a momentous case – momentous to the Attorney-General and the party with which he was connected. It would afford that party a scourge to repress the people from giving expression to their feelings and opinions, but he trusted the Court and jury would interpose from obtaining that power. The juries of England had always saved the liberties of the people when they were sought to be crushed by charges like the present.
During the progress of Mr Fitzgibbon’s speech, the Court and Jury retired as usual about two o’clock, for refreshment. During their absence the Attorney-General was observed to convey a note to Mr Fitzgibbon, which he had been writing in court. On the return of their Lordships, Mr Fitzgibbon applied to them to ascertain whether he had, during the progress of his address, permitted himself to make use of any improper expressions personally reflecting on the conduct of the Attorney-General with regard to the trials. He then called on the Attorney General to hand up to their Lordship a note which the Attorney-General had sent over to him.
The Attorney-General said that if the Learned Counsel had any motion to make on the subject he had better state it upon affidavit.
Mr Fitzgibbon (vehemently) – Never. And if the Attorney-General does not hand up the note to the Court I will state the substance of it.
Mr Fitzgibbon then stated that the Attorney-General had sent him a note, calling on him to retract certain expressions which he was represented to have used in the course of his address, and which the Attorney-General considered as personally reflecting on himself, and calling on him, if he did not retract them, to name a friend.
This statement caused the most marked sensation, surprise being the most prominent feature of it, throughout the Court.
Attorney General of Ireland – and challenger to Mr FitzGibbon QC – Thomas Berry ‘Alphabet’ Cusack-Smith
The Attorney-General said that Mr Fitzgibbon had stated in his address to the Court, that he was influenced by private motives in the conduct of the present prosecution – that he was guided in the conduct of it by his feelings as to what effect success or failure might have upon his political advancement, and if he withdrew the reflection thus cast upon his conduct, he would be satisfied.
Mr Fitzgibbon said the Attorney General came with pistol in hand, and he could not help telling him that he would not thus draw an apology from him
Mr Moore suggested that as all must regret that such an occurrence had taken place, an opportunity should be given to both parties to become reconciled with each other by mutual explanation.
The Chief Justice thanked Mr Moore for his suggestion, and stated that the Court felt itself in a very embarrassing situation; and that the Attorney-General was the last man that ought to have allowed himself to be betrayed into any such expression as that now declared to the Court.
The Attorney-General said that now he would not impose any condition respecting the withdrawal of the expressions which had hurt him.
Mr Fitzgibbon declared that he had never meant to impute anything like improper motives to the Attorney-General in the conduct of the trials, but that he felt he did not exceed his duty in canvassing his conduct as a public man.
After some further observations from the mutual friends of both learned gentlemen, Mr Fitzgibbon resumed his address to the Court, which rose at a quarter to five.
There is one circumstance that rendered the sending the challenge at such a time and in such a manner especially blameable. The lady of Mr Fitzgibbon and her child were sitting at the table nearly by the side of Mr Fitzgibbon.”
Just another day in the 1844 State trial of Daniel O’Connell and Mr FitzGibbon’s client John Gray in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Dublin’s Four Courts. Later that month both men were condemned to nine months’ imprisonment but in September 1844 their sentences were remitted on appeal.
Mr FitzGibbon in full flow on behalf of his client during the trial, possibly even during the speech that provoked Mr Smith
Media opinion on the incident above tended to be polarised – the Morning Herald came out strongly in favour of the Attorney-General, Thomas Berry Cusack-Smith, describing him as a gentleman by birth, education and habits and a man of a delicate and a high spirit who, in response to a gross insult by personal allusion, took that course which many gentlemen would condemn in their moments of reflection but which most would imitate if subjected to similar provocation.
The Morning Advertiser, on the other hand, was firmly on the side of Mr FitzGibbon:
“Mr Smith has done and said many extraordinary things in the course of these proceedings; but his exhibition of today outdoes all his former outdoings… there is one opinion here as to the worse than indecency – the absolute criminality – of her Majesty’s Attorney-General – a magistrate ex officio of every county in Ireland – sending a hostile message to a brother barrister during the sittings.”
Probably most common-sense people shared the view of the Evening Mail:
“Mr Smith remains, no doubt, an excellent advocate in a real action or ordinary prosecution for burglary; but preserve the public from such an attorney general.”
Meanwhile, like every advocate with the wind in his sails, Mr FitzGibbon had no intention of bringing the show to an end any time soon, profusely apologising for having, “as an ardent man in a high degree – too much so, I must confess, but I cannot help it any more than I can help sleeping… unintentionally pressed upon a temper which could not be helped by the Attorney- General more than the air he breathed…”
A temper which was probably not improved by reading the above!
All court rows die down in time, and this one did too, with both parties involved subsequently being appointed to positions of high eminence – Master in Chancery for FitzGibbon and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland for Smith – no harm done – though some did say that Smith might have attained an even higher judicial office had it not been for that nearly-fatal afternoon in February 1844.
The little boy in court to hear his father challenged went on to become Solicitor-General and Lord Justice of Appeal in Ireland.
What a day out in what is now Court No 1, Four Courts, for him – and for Mrs FitzGibbon!
Judge Boyd distinguished himself by catching a young thief in flagrante delicto. Passing through Kildare Street, his attention was attracted to some newsboys besetting a lady. One boy was on her right, and the other on her left hand. As the boy on her left pressed her to buy a paper which he held up before her eyes, the boy on her right stole a paper parcel out of her pocket. The learned judge caught the young thief by the waist, and held him while he dropped the parcel. Sir Edward Verner, Bart, called a constable. The judge gave the lad, who struggled to get off, into custody. The constable also arrested the other lad. The two were brought up at the police court today before Mr Byrne, QC. Judge Boyd having given his evidence, they were remanded for a week.”
It is not reported what subsequently happened to the boys, named elsewhere as Patrick Brophy and Edward Bregan. Brophy was the boy who extracted the parcel. Hopefully they kept out of trouble thereafter!
And another member of the Irish judiciary, Judge Kenny, was to have his own very personal experience with crime and theft when his lunch was stolen from the Four Courts in 1912. What a pity Judge Boyd (top left, Irish Independent, 10 April 1916) was not on hand that day to apprehend the offender!
A young lad named Dominick Roynane was brought up in custody of Police Constable John Cartin 101D, charged with incautiously driving through the streets, without proper control, a wild and furious cow, to the great danger of the public. It appears from the statement of the constable that he saw the cow, being driven from Smithfield, turn from Pill-Lane into Mountrath-Street, where she ran at a woman named Mary Quinn, who was walking on the pathway, and taking her horns, tossed her several feet into the air; the poor woman fell heavily on the pavement, and was injured to an extent that the medical testimony which was produced in court stated that her life was in danger. She lies in St. Vincent’s Hospital, whither she was taken after the occurrence. The infuriated animal then rushed down the street, making furious plunges at several persons, and others at the constable, who had a narrow escape of being taken on her horns. She then ran into Mr Busby’s premises in New Street, where the constable left her for the purpose of procuring assistance in capturing her, and when he returned he found that she had rushed into a yard on Merchant’s Quay where she was snared with rope from a window and got into a float. The constable stated that the prisoner exercised every exertion to alarm the people on the street, and save them from being injured during the progress of the cow through the street.
The Magistrate said that although the prisoner had done everything he could to prevent the accident, he was obliged, under the circumstances, to direct him to be detained in custody until the life of the woman should be declared out of danger.”
There are no reports of any further criminal proceedings against Mr Roynane, so it may be presumed that the unfortunate Ms Quinn recovered! As can be seen from a zoom over the mid-19th century map below, all this drama happened right at the back of the Four Courts.
By 1856, the south side of Pill Lane (now Chancery Street) had been incorporated into the courts but buildings on its north side remained in place. With shops on one side, it may have looked somewhat like the street in the topmost, slightly later, image.
This current map shows that a lot has changed in terms of street configuration since 1856. Mountrath Street, for instance, is now buried somewhere under Courts 25 and 26. Route-tracking suggests that, after her encounter with the unfortunate Ms Quinn, the heroine of this story ran straight down Chancery Place and across what is now O’Donovan Rossa Bridge to reach her final destination on the opposite side of the Liffey.
Despite Chancery Street having seen a few further fleet-footed escapees over the years (mostly criminals from the Bridewell erected in the vicinity), the only thing that runs along it today is the LUAS. Next time you travel through this once-famous street, keep your ears open as you pass the north-eastern corner of the Four Courts – who knows, you might even hear, through time, the echo of a wild and furious, fast and angry, unmistakeably bovine ‘Moo!’
A sad story tonight, from Saunders’ News-Letter, 30 January 1778, involving a murder and secret burial in the graveyard of St Michan’s Church next to the Law Library buildings at 158/9 Church Street.
“Last week one of those chimney sweepers who employ a number of boys or children, adapted in their size to the narrowest tunnel, brought a small creature to make his first effay in a chimney in Dirty-Lane, Thomas-Street; when the poor child attempted to ascend, a sudden fear seized him from the dismal and gloomy prospect he had to encounter; he piteously entreated to be let down after he went up a little way, and his master as obdurately insisted on the contrary: the child, however (his fears at length urging him to a resolute despair) refused to ascend higher than to avoid the blows of the unfeeling master, whose cruelty and rage increasing by the disappointment of his vengeance, had recourse to the following barbarous contrivance to enforce compliance to his will, he set fire to a bundle of straw in the grate, telling him he must either make his way up or be burned, a few moments after which the poor creature fell down suffocated. The master had him secretly buried in St Michan’s church-yard, without suspicion, but the other children he employed discovering the matter to some neighbours, the body was taken up, and a coroner’s inquest being held on it, brought in their verdict wilful murder. The fellow was in consequence apprehended and lodged in Newgate on Friday last. It would be an insult on the feelings of justice and humanity to comment on this barbarous transaction.”
We have come a long way since the days of child slave labour!
A salutary reminder not just to look out for children who may be at risk during lockdown – but also to be kind to work colleagues and employees even if you fail to understand their anxieties and concerns. No one wants a backtrack to such an unfeeling era, and we must not let the isolation of lockdown lead to a lack of empathy for others.
I wonder if the poor child victim of this appalling crime remains buried in St Michans? It would be wonderful to locate and perhaps clean up his grave!
.jpg){kind=link}