From the Tuam Herald, 9 December 1837, and the Dublin Morning Register, 8 December 1837:
“DUBLIN POLICE
HENRY STREET.- EXTRAORDINARY STORY OF A GHOST
An elderly little man, apparently in his perfect senses, came before the bench and stated that the ghost of his former master appeared to him nine times altogether. The first appearance was in June, when he came to him at nine or ten o’clock in the evening. He was greatly frightened, and was sick for three weeks after the ghost appeared to him. He appeared to him five times more, and on the sixth time he asked him in the name of God, what did he want.
The ghost told him that he had been murdered three years ago by a man named ___ who was foreman in his employment; that he was choked by that man and his brother in his own privy; that he left £15,000 in ready money, and his stock in trade, that the murderer possessed himself of all under the title of a false will; that a servant girl had cognizance of the fact, and that he (the ghost) would be greatly obliged to the narrator if he would go to a magistrate, set an inquiry on foot, and have the man arrested.
The man did not then go to a magistrate, but he went to the accused, and told him what passed between himself and the ghost, whereupon the accused said he did not care a pin for all the ghosts in Bully’s Acre.
The man then called down a priest who lodged in the house, and who asked him could he swear to all that had been told him on that occasion. He said he could; and the priest replied that if he would see the ghost again to send him to his reverence. He did see the ghost again, and told him what the priest said, but his ghostship said he did not want to have any call to the priest – he wanted to have justice done and requested that the man would go to a magistrate. The man omitted doing so, and in the few days after the ghost again appeared to him, and made a similar request, so that at last he came before his worships.
One of the peace-officers who was present said he recollected very well that the man alluded to had died suddenly, and that his foreman was actually in possession of his property.
The magistrates said it was upon that very fact the man founded the story of the ghost.
The man begged for God’s sake that their worships would take his informations, or do something in the business, for if they did not the ghost would give him no rest.
He was so importunate that they (the magistrates) directed him to Arran-Quay police office, being the division in which the accused person lives. We called there in the course of the day but could not learn that the ghost-seer had made his appearance.”
Portrait silhouettes by Monsieur Edgar Adolphe, via Alamy.
From the Dublin Daily Express, 6 October 1862:
“A STRANGE CASE.- Madame Margaret Phibbs, otherwise Adolphe, appeared to answer the complaint of Monsieur Edgar Adolphe, a photographic artist, 75 Grafton-street, to show cause why informations should not be taken against her for having published, at Mrs Dempsey’s, Grafton-street, on Wednesday, the 1st of October, and various other occasions a certain wilful and malicious libel, in the form of a hand-bill, for the purpose of annoying him and injuring him in his business, and to bring him into disrepute and shame; also for causing to be posted in the leading thoroughfares of the city and suburbs a defamatory bill, and thereby tending to provoke a breach of the peace.
Nicholas Harding, a printer, of Werburgh-street, was summoned by the same complainant for printing a certain wilful and malicious libel, in the form of a hand-bill, for the purpose of bringing said complainant into disrepute and shame.
Mr E.A. Ennis appeared for the complainant, and Mr Purcell, instructed by Mr Charles Fitzgerald, senior, for the defendant.
The case against Madame Adolphe was proceeded with first.
Mr Ennis stated that a case of a similar kind had been brought before the court some months ago, and there was a promise made that if no further annoyance were given the proceedings would not be gone on with.
Mr Purcell denied that such a condition was made. He called upon Mr Ennis to read the alleged libel.
Mr Ennis said they could scarcely fail to have seen that bill on the walls of the town. It was to this effect:
‘£50 REWARD!
If the Baron de Glasben de Tettenborn, artist, will give satisfactory information respecting the female under his protection, whom he alleges to be the former wife of Edgar Adolphe, photographer, 75 Grafton-street, Dublin, and, if she be now living, bring her forward, or if not, give legal proofs that she was alive on or about the 16th of November, 1856, he shall receive the above REWARD, or ANY person giving the required proofs. Letters addressed to M.P., 87 Lower Dorset-street, Dublin, will meet attention. N Harding, printer, 7 Werburgh-street.”
Mr Ennis proceeded to comment on it to show that it was a libellous nature, that it insinuated that his client had acted foully and dishonourably to some lady of rank.
Mr Purcell said they were anxious to examine the complainant.
Mr Ennis – Well, so you can. Come up, Baron.
Mr Purcell – Oh! Is he a baron?
Mr Ennis said they were not there to inquire into his titles.
Monsieur Edgar Adolphe was then sworn, and examined by Mr Ennis. – I only want to protect myself from this annoyance.
Mr Purcell said he appeared for the defendant, and if she was his wife there was no known law for indicting a man’s wife for libel. She had merely advertised for information to right herself, and he would ask the court to decide the case on this question.
Witness continued.- I know defendant. She is my wife.
Mr Purcell asked the court to dismiss the case. He had sworn that the lady was his wife, and he was sure that no proposition in law supported the idea of a man taking an action for libel against his wife. This was the first case of the kind that had ever occurred in his experience, and now that the man had confessed that the defendant was his wife, assuming the whole charge to be true, there was no charge could be supported against her of this kind. It was a principle most clearly established in law that a man could not be a witness against his wife, nor a wife against her husband, save in three cases – first, of treason; second, where the wife brought a charge of violence against her husband; and third, in a case of murder.
Mr McDermott,(who was assisted by Mr Allen in trying this case) asked was it not competent to bind the husband over to keep the peace?
Mr Purcell said this case was different altogether. It was a case of libel, and he would ask on what principle could a man bring an action for libel against his wife, and, if not, how he could proceed criminally on the same charge. They were one flesh.
Mr McDermott – Then, if he committed suicide she should die also, I suppose?
Mr Purcell said she would – as a wife. He would put in the objection, and if their worships wished he could overrule the objection and proceed. He did not see how a man who had sworn that a woman was his wife could ask for these informations to be taken. On legal grounds, strictly, this case should be dismissed.
Mr McDermott said that was not quite clear, but that they should, at all events, hear the evidence.
Mr Purcell asked them to take a note of the objection.
Witness continued (in reply to Mr Ennis) – I have been married these six years to this lady. I have been four years and five months separated from her. The matter that I complain of commenced two years ago, and I brought her before the court for it.
Mr Purcell objected to the former case being opened up again.
Witness continued – I have observed these bills distributed in thousands within the last two years. They have been sent up to me by my boys by this lady. On the 1st October, my wife was in Mrs Dempsey’s, opposite, at the window, and when I went to the opposite window she made faces at me, and took out one of these bills and shook it at me, and sneered over, as she is in the habit of doing. I did not notice who was with her. That bill would tend to lessen me in the public estimation, as it might provoke me to knock that woman down in the street if I saw her. It speaks as if I had this woman under my protection.
Mr Purcell – Is the name of the lady to it?
Witness – ‘MP’ are her initials.
Mr Purcell – Would that excite you – that bill?
Witness – It would, sir. If I saw it in her hand, or in your hand, I might knock you or her down.
Mr Purcell – Would you? If you tried it you might get the worst of it.
Cross-examined by Mr Purcell: I am a photographer and minature painter. I married defendant on 16th of November 1856, in Warrington. I was married before, at Brighton, in Essex, 25 years ago. I object to answer further, as I wish to respect the ashes of those who are gone.
Mr Ennis cautioned the prisoner against answering any question but such as he pleased.
Mr Purcell only asked him to answer or decline as he pleased. He would not force him to answer any question that might criminate himself. Either way would serve him equally.
Witness objected to tell his first wife’s name, but afterwards said it was Eloise Giles.
Mr Purcell – Where were you married in Brighton?
Witness – I object to this.
Mr McDermott said it would be better to show, first of all, where the libels lay in this document, and then they could proceed. He did not see any crime in what was printed there. It did not imply any crime that he could discover.
Mr Ennis said he would show at once a prima facie case. First, it was implied that there was an improper female living with him.
Mr McDermott did not see that it did. Frequently there were advertisements of that kind printed, seeking information as regards a legacy, or for some such cause. This lady evidently wished to gain information with reference to her position as the wife of the complainant, as, of course, she would not be his wife if his first wife were living.
Mr Ennis proceeded to argue at length on the difference which, he stated, existed between defamation and libel and in this case he contended there had been a case of defamation by the defendant. He would willingly stay the case if the defendant would promise not to give further annoyance.
Mr Purcell would enter into no agreement.
Both the magistrates stated that they were unable to find anything that would warrant them to find the defendant guilty of a libel or defamation, or that it was anything but a bona fide transaction on the part of the defendant to endeavour to obtain information which she was entitled to under the circumstances. They would, therefore, dismiss the summons, recommending that defendant would not irritate complainant further. They would give no costs to either party.
The complaint against the printer was then dismissed without prejudice, and the parties left the court.”
Monsieur Adolphe’s premises at 75 and 76 Grafton Street as they are today.
First wife still alive or not, no prosecution for bigamy was ever brought against Monsieur Adolphe, who continued to carry on the Gold Palette Photographic Gallery at 75 and 76 Grafton Street, Dublin, until well into the 1880s. The notoriety of the above proceedings does not seem to have prejudiced his business. In 1865, he advertised the addition to his establishment of a ‘third exclusive Ladies’ Room’ added in the hope of affording ‘greater comforts and convenience to its numerous visitors than can possibly be met with otherwise… no appointment necessary.’
It seems that the Adolphes never reconciled, as Monsieur Adolphe was recorded as living alone in 1879. Hopefully his estranged spouse followed the magistrates’ advice and refrained from treating the above advertisement as an invitation to pay his premises a visit!
More on the art and photography of Edgar Adolphe here.
Patrick MacDowell’s statue of the former ‘briefless junior,’ Sir Michael O’Loghlen, Master of the Rolls, after the Battle of the Four Courts, 1922, via South Dublin Digital Archive.
From the Freeman’s Journal, 12 July 1922:-
“Artistic Dublin is more than anxious to learn the full fate of the superb seated statue of Sir Michael O’Loghlen, Master of the Rolls, which the Bar of Ireland erected in the Round Hall of the Four Courts. Concern for the masterpiece recalls the fact that O’Loghlen owed his first success at the bar to the duel fought between Dan O’Connell and D’Esterre. He had been called to the Bar in 1811, but for years remained almost briefless. He chanced to be junior in a case in which O’Connell was leader. O’Connell had to keep his appointment with D’Esterre in Lord Clonmell’s grounds near Naas, and was, therefore, absent when the case was called. The ‘junior’ with the very greatest trepidation had to fill the tremendous breach, for O’Connell as an advocate had no equal in his time. O’Loghlen, however, proved no mean substitute for the great forensic orator. He took the whole of his client’s case on his shoulders, and after a masterly speech, which occupied two hours, sat down with a high reputation established. He astonished Bench and Bar by his fine performance, at once sprang into a first-class practice, became Serjeant-at-Law, Solicitor and Attorney-General, a Member of Parliament, Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland and, finally, Master of the Rolls.”
The missing statue, sculpted by Patrick MacDowell, was wrought of a single block of the purest Carrera marble, elevated on a pedestal of veined Sicilian marble bearing the following inscription in Roman characters:
“THE BAR OF IRELAND, to the memory of Sir Michael O’Loghlen, Bart, Master of the Rolls, born, 16th October 1789, died, 28th September 1842.”
Situated by the portal of the Court of Exchequer (today’s Court 3), the statue depicted its subject, the first Catholic to hold high judicial office in Ireland since 1688, in a reclining attitude beside the court in which he had first pleaded as an advocate and subsequently presided as Baron of the Exchequer before his elevation to the office of Master of the Rolls.
Barristers, prone to disagree, were unanimous as to the quality of the sculptor’s work. Not all of them, however, agreed with his choice of subject; one newspaper published a letter from ‘A Barrister of Long Standing,’ possibly of a different religious persuasion, listing other judges allegedly better fitted for commemoration in stone.
The ‘bland benevolence’ of O’Loghlen’s marble features, unshaken by such criticism, remained a prominent feature of the Round Hall for the next seventy years until its abrupt and violent beheading in the bombardment of 1922.
“At the Waterford Police Court on Monday, before J Slattery, Esq., a woman named Mary Murphy was charged by Constable Williams with having by false pretence obtained from a number of persons in the city various sums of money.
Constable Williams deposed that for some time past the prisoner, who gave the name of Mary Murphy, had followed the occupation of fortune-teller in the city. She passed as a deaf mute, and represented herself as being able to tell people’s fortune.
Prisoner – Did I, now? Maybe I could tell yours.
His Worship- Whether you can tell his fortune or not, one thing is clear, and that is that you are neither deaf nor dumb (Laughter.)
Complainant – I will produce several persons from whom she received sums of money under the pretence that she was able to tell them their fortunes.
Mary Dwyer deposed – I know the prisoner. I met her on Thursday last. I thought she was a deaf and dumb woman, and a woman with me said that she was a witch and could tell fortunes (Laughter.) We took her into a public house in King Street, and she made signs at me that she could tell me about my brother, who was in America but that she could not do it under a shilling. I offered her fourpence and conveyed to her that I had given her a large bottle, and a pint of porter, but she made me signs that to take less would break the charm (Great laughter.)
Constable Williams – Did she take the fourpence?
Witness – No, she signed that she could not tell for less than one shilling (Great laughter.)
His Worship – Don’t you think that you were a very silly woman?
Witness – I thought when she was a dummy she might be able to tell. (Laughter).
Constable Williams- Did you see the prisoner take any money under the pretence that she was able to tell fortunes? I did.
From whom did she receive it? From Mrs Power.
What did Mrs Power want to know? She wanted to know from her if her husband, who is in America, was still alive (Loud laughter).
And she paid the prisoner for this information? She did.
Head Constable Kavanagh – I thought the charm was broke at any future under a shilling (Laughter).
Witness – A shilling for a brother or sweetheart, but only sixpence for married people. (Renewed laughter.)
His Worship – Don’t you think that a woman of your respectable appearance and intelligence should not believe in such things?
Witness – She did not get anything out of me.
Head Constable Kavanagh – Had she given you the desired information for 4d you would have paid for it? (Laughter).
Witness – I suppose I would.
Constable Williams – And all the time she was drinking stout and obtaining money under the pretence of fortune-telling she was deaf and dumb?
Witness – She was (Loud laughter).
[The Prisoner here attacked the witness, and then the police, in a voice neither soft nor sweet.]
Alice Power, a young woman apparently about 24 years of age, deposed that she went to the prisoner, who she heard could tell fortunes.
Did she tell you your fortune? She did.
Did you pay her for the information? I did.
How much? I paid her 6d.
What did she tell you? She told me I would be married to a clerk with £100 a year, and that I would have six children. (Laughter.)
Bridget Nugent, a young woman, deposed.
– Some weeks ago I went to the prisoner to get her to tell my fortune. She made signs at me that she would require 1s. I signed to her that I could not afford more than 6d, and then she took it and told me my fortune. (Laughter.)
Head Constable Kavanagh – Would you mind telling the court what she told you?
The Witness laughingly declined to tell.
Head Constable Kavanagh said that the prisoner had for some months past been trading on the credulity of the females in the city by pretending to tell their fortunes, but it was with difficulty that they could get any witnesses to come forward.
The prisoner was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labour.”
“MOST EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF ROBBING HOUSES IN DUBLIN
The following very curious case came to light yesterday and perhaps in the annals of clever rogues, the hero of the present story has been the most successful during his career, which is estimated at about 12 calendar months from the date hereof, and what makes the case more remarkable is, the fact that these very ‘knowing gentry,’ the ‘detective police,’ have been completely at fault during that period. However, it remained for one of the aforesaid detectives to reveal a very strange case indeed, and this man’s name is in excellent keeping with his profession-his name is Hawks – a very appropriate name for a detective. Yet, though he be a Hawk and a detective, he is a very efficient and respectable officer, and deserves much credit for his conduct on the present occasion.
The police, for the last year had received accounts, almost daily, of robberies com- mitted in lodging and other houses throughout the city by a person whose description always accompanied the report, but the fellow always contrived, chameleon-like, to change his colour – the colour of his clothes at least, and the cut of his hair or beard, so as to avoid detection up to the present. He carried on his operations in the following successful manner. Into every respectable house, where he saw a bill with “furnished lodgings” on the window he went, and at once entered into negotiation for taking the spare apartments, stating that he was sent by a gentleman from Trinity College, and that he had authority to engage the lodging for his friend, whom he represented as a man of considerable property, and great respectability.
He generally said- ‘Myself and friend were driving past in our cab yesterday, and we took a great liking to the respectable appearance of your house, and came to the conclusion at once of coming to live here. The situation is very cheerful and the street respectable; all of which we require and we are determined to have the lodging. What is your price by the month?’ And then, of course, a bargain followed, and the airy bedroom and desirable sitting-room, drawing room or parlour, as the case might be, were at once engaged.
There was a good deal of attention paid by him to the culinary department of the house. The teapot must be silver, the spoons of the same metal; the egg cups must be plated at least, and the kitchen utensils could be nothing less than copper highly tinned. In fact, everything should be perfect, and nothing wanting, as his friend of the College was most particular in these matters-the more so as he always paid with a liberality to compensate for all trouble that might be taken.
The fellow had an eye to trade also; for in one place the paper of the bed-room was quite out of fashion, and must be replaced; in another, the sideboard was too antique, and a more fashionable one a should be ordered, as his friend would engage the lodging for twelve months certain; in a third, the fire-irons and fender were quite out of keeping with the rest of the room – it would not cost much to get new ones, and this would render a real service to the proprietor, as the whole would look so genteel, and please his college friend vastly.
So matters went on; the room was newly papered, the sideboard ordered, the fire-irons purchased, and all done to order. The lodgings were to be taken possession of the next day; but when the morrow came it brought not the ‘gentleman from college,’ but, on the contrary, the visitor generally was a policeman called off the beat, in order to recelve a description of a fellow who had engaged apartments the previous day, and who contrived to carry off a gold watch, a lot of silver spoons, a teapot, or any other article that lay convenient at the time of this visit. Nor did the fellow mind trifles-a pair of trousers, a vest, or shirt, was just as lawful a prize as a double-jewelled patent lever repeater. He had a great fancy, too, for silver snuffers and trays, and if a box of surgical instruments lay in his way he made as little scruple of carrying it away as would its owner when going to perform a post-mortem examination and a body at a coroner’s inquest.
At last his tricks became too broad to bear with, and there being about two hundred complaints lodged against him the police resolved to grip him under any circumstances. Hawks got a scent, and after seven weeks hard trail he at last earthed the fox in a house, 11 Moore Street. The prisoner, whose name it appears is David Givvins, was brought before Mr. Tyndall yesterday evening at College Street Police Office, and such a scene as was presented seldom takes place in a police court. Old and young ladies were there, servant maids and little boys came forward to give evidence. The prisoner appeared to be about 24 years of age, with a peculiar knowing cast of countenance, and penetrating eye. His hair long, and combed backward, his whiskers nicely curled, and coming round on his chin, his shirt (a stolen one) collar was turned gracefully down over a black satin scarf, and altogether the fellow looked more like a half exquisite on town, than an accomplished robber.
Out of the innumerable number of charges preferred against him, the following only were brought forward for the present, the first being that of his last exploit, which was performed at the house of Mrs. Campbell, 137, Upper Leeson-street. On the 20th instant, he went to the house, engaged a sitting and bedroom, and while examining the latter in presence of Mrs. Campbell, he stole her gold watch chain, some rings and a locket, which were attached. Of course, the lady did not see him take the articles, but she missed them shortly after he left, and she was certain they were in the room a few minutes before he entered it.
From the 6th of March, up to the 20th of May, he committed the following robberies, all while engaged taking lodgings. From the house of Mrs. Austin, Holles Street, he abstracted a silver table spoon, and two forks of the same material; from Mr. G. Kennedy, of Coburgh Place, a five, a three, and a one pound note, a vest, scarf, and pair of trousers; Mrs. Wallace, of North Earl Street, lost a top-coat and pair of silver snuffers ; Miss Byrne, of King street, was minus a night shirt and pair of boots; Mr. O’Dwyer, of Newcomen Lodge, a pair of black dress trousers, quite new, value 11 shillings; Mr. Walsh, Denzille Street, lost a silver tea pot; Mrs. Ryan, Harcourt Street, a silver spoon; Mrs. Kennedy, Mountpleasant, a silver jug, gilt inside; Mr. Graves, of Queen Square, a box of surgical instruments; Mr. Rooney, Upper Dorset Street, a silver snuffers; and Mr. Clapperton, Middle Abbey Street. a gold chain, a diamond ring, and gold locket.
It appeared that the prisoner generally had a large top-coat with ample pockets inside the skirt, and into these receptacles he stored away every article that he could lay his hands on. When engaging the lodging he would turn back to admire the prospect from the bedroom window, saying he was particularly struck with the beauty of the scene. Of course, he had previously surveyed the apartment and the attendant being thrown off guard he was enabled to conceal any article that came within his grasp. lie was identified by several witnesses, and Mr Tyndall committed him for trial, saying he never in the course of his experience heard of such a case.
The prisoner, it was said, is respectably connected. A gentleman who happened to be in the Office on private business seeing the prisoner-not knowing he was in custody-called a policeman and said: ‘Take that person into charge – he robbed my house about two months since of a large quantity of property.’ The gentleman was informed that the prisoner was in charge already, and the gentleman was very much surprised when he heard the number of complaints preferred against him. Besides the above number of complaints against the prisoner there will be over forty other Indictments sent up at sessions by persons who are able to identify him. It is supposed that he has realised several hundred pounds by his plunder. Lodging-house keepers should be on their guard against similar practitioners; but at present it is supposed that he acted purely on his own account.”
David Givvins’ real name turned out to be Daniel Levins, or Levine, a former ship’s steward and now a so-called tailor. He had previously been a member of the Irish Methodist Church, whose coffers he had also plundered.
History does not record what happened to Mr Levins.
Making exorbitant demands of one’s victims which need to be complied with quickly remains a key tactic of fraudsters today!
