Month: May 2023

The Four Courts Hotel opened beside the Four Courts on Inns Quay in 1902, in place of its predecessor the Angel, which, as previously documented, had suffered a number of mysterious deaths during its period of operation. If the cuisine at the Angel foreshortened lives, the bedrooms at Four Courts Hotel did the same thing for marriages – below is the story of just one of a number of divorces in which its staff were called to give evidence.

From the Daily Mirror, 9 March 1904:

“DRAPER’S DIVORCE FROM A BEAUTIFUL IRISH BRIDE WHO RESENTED THE TRAMMELS OF MATRIMONY

The story of how a high-spirited young Irish girl, resolutely determined not to submit to the tyranny of a husband twenty-seven years her senior who asked her to look after his home for him, successfully achieved her end was told before Mr. Justice Barnes yesterday.

Mrs. Belle Sutter’s successful resistance, then, culminated in a divorce obtained from her by her husband, Mr. Alexander Oliver Sutter, who keeps a draper’s shop in Brighton.

To appreciate fully the following account of Mrs. Sutter’s struggle for freedom it is necessary to examine carefully a message which she wrote to her husband shortly after her marriage.  This is the message: – “My dear boy, don’t think that you can boast of breaking the spirit of an Irish girl, for you never can.”

Mr. Sutter never could.  Although, himself unconscious of the effort, he, according to Mrs. Sutter, repeatedly tried, she repeatedly thwarted him by the process of temporarily throwing off the matrimonial yoke.

Mr. Sutter married Mrs. Sutter in 1902.  He was then a widower, forty-seven years of age, with a family of two children, his first wife having died in 1899.  He wished for somebody to look after his children, and when he saw twenty-year-old Miss Belle during a holiday in Belfast he thought she was the very girl.  She was as beautiful as only an Irish colleen can be, and a marriage was speedily arranged.  There was only one obstacle.  Miss Belle frankly confessed that she had had tender passages with another gentleman, but Mr. Sutter, although he could not elicit this gentleman’s name, declared that the said gentleman was no objection.

Yet within a month of the marriage, which took place at the registrar’s office in Brighton, Mrs. Sutter had come to the conclusion that an attempt was being made to tame her and that she must show her spirit.  She was expected to look after the children instead of being taken to the theatre, so she went off to her family in Belfast.

Very reluctantly she at length returned in answer to her husband’s entreaties, but in order to vindicate her spirit she brought it back with her little brother.

TRAMPLED ON AGAIN!

The little brother was the cause of more trouble, and Mrs. Sutter at once recognized that she was being trampled on again.  Off she went to Belfast for a second time, and on this occasion, she stayed away for three months.

Giving up all hope of getting her back, Mr. Sutter went into lodgings, and sold his home.  On the day after the sale the untamed Mrs. Sutter waked into his shop, newly arrived from Ireland.

Having no home to take his wife to, Mr. Sutter was forced to go to a boarding house with her.  Here Mrs. Sutter showed her spirit by flirting with a border.

Mr. Sutter, unable to understand her position, objected, and Mrs. Sutter thought it fitting to give a further manifestation of indomitability. She went off to Belfast for a third time.

In an effort to catch her Mr. Sutter traced her to the Grand Hotel, in London, but all he found tangible was a telegram to her saying ‘Meet me Four Courts Hotel, Dublin.’  Her relations had been writing to her, thought Mr. Sutter.

Mrs. Sutter came back from the north of Ireland in due course, according to her wont, and with her came the intimation that during her absence she had been showing her spirit by running up bills in Dublin in her husband’s name.

Mr. Sutter refused to pay the bills, and the consequence was that a writ reached Brighton.  ‘I will fight the case,’ said Mr. Sutter, although his wife asked him not to do so.  But he did not tell his wife that he was going to Ireland to oppose her creditors.  Therefore, he was immensely surprised on arriving at Euston, on the way to catch the mail boat to Dublin, to find that Mrs. Sutter was also taking a fourth trip to see her relatives.  She was on the platform armed with a first-class ticket, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Sutter’s finances only enabled him to take a ‘second class’.

Exercising the prerogative of a husband, Mr. Sutter took charge of his wife for the rest of the trip, and when they arrived in Dublin engaged comfortable quarters for them both.  He was quite willing that she should go on to Belfast, and arranged to see her off on a train that left the next evening.

Then he went out about the writ.

But when he returned, he found that Mrs. Sutter had again shown her spirit.  She was nowhere to be found.

Mr. Sutter at once made an inspection of the chief Dublin hotels, but no Mrs. Sutter could be found.  It was not until the next morning that the wording of the Grand Hotel telegram occurred to his mind – ‘Meet me at the Four Courts Hotel, Dublin.’ Had Mrs. Sutter shown her spirit by going thither?

RUN TO EARTH

The question was put by Mr. Sutter to the Four Courts Hotel management.

There was no Mrs. Sutter, was the reply, but there was Mrs. Wright staying in the hotel with her husband, Mr. Wright.

Finding that the description of Mrs. Wright tallied with that of Mrs. Sutter, Mr. Sutter demanded to be shown up to the lady’s bedroom.

Accompanied by the chambermaid he found Mrs. Sutter in bed.

‘I have found you out,’ was all that Mr. Sutter trusted himself to say, and then, on turning on his heel, he met Mr. Wright at the bedroom door.

When Mr. Sutter subsequently began divorce proceedings Mrs. Sutter still showed her spirit.  She went to the shop in Brighton with some friends and asked for a reconciliation.

Yesterday, besides Mr. Sutter, only the Four Courts’ Hotel chambermaid gave evidence, and a decree was at once granted.”

Was the Four Courts Hotel one of those hotels? More tragic tales of destruction of married bliss associated with it to come!

On 22 August 1922, Michael Collins, Chairman of the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State, was shot dead in an ambush at Béal na Bláth, County Cork. The person who fired the shot that killed him has never been conclusively identified.

Thirty six years after the shooting, its memory still resonates in this slander action involving local personages from the interestingly named village of Kilbrittain, with the barrister nephew of none other than Collins himself joining in the fray with some impressively incisive cross-examination…

From the Irish Examiner, 17 December 1958:

“SLANDER ACTION ARISING OUT OF MICHAEL COLLINS DEATH

Damages of a halfpenny with no order as to costs were awarded in a slander action in which the death of General Michael Collins was recalled in the Cork Circuit Court before his Lordship Judge Neylon, S.C., yesterday.  The action concerned a reputed allegation that a Kilbrittain man had fired the shot which killed the head of the Provisional Government at Beal na Blath.  In his summing up, the Judge said he was quite satisfied that the plaintiff in the action had nothing to do with the shooting.

The plaintiff in the case was Cornelius Crowley, Co Council labourer, Kilbrittain, and the defendant was John Howe, Howe’s Strand, Kilbrittain, farmer.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

The statement of claim set out that the defendant had spoken the words ‘Of course you know, he (meaning the plaintiff) had shot Michael Collins.”  The defence was a denial that the defendant had made the statement alleged or any statement which could have the meaning as alleged, or that the plaintiff had suffered damage.

Mr. Howe was defended by Mr. Sean Collins, a nephew of the late Michael Collins.  He was instructed by Messrs. PJ O’Driscoll and Sons, solicitors.  Mr. G McCarthy (instructed by Messrs. R Neville and Co, solrs, appeared for the plaintiff.

Opening the case, Mr. McCarthy described his client as a well-known Old I.R.A. Brigade captain, whose name had been a bye-word for courage and bravery. He had been a friend of the late General Michael Collins, whom he had known very well.  At the time of Collins’ death, he had been at Ardagh, Lifford, Co Donegal, and had neither hand, act or part in that killing.  Mr. Crowley was not a man who would kill a former comrade and leader.  A man of humble station, he had appreciation and regard for his association with Collins.  The defendant was a large farmer.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

The Sunday Express had published, in February 1956, an article about Collins.  Mr. McCarthy continued, and in the course of that it had been alleged that Mr. Crowley had shot and killed Collins.  Mr. Crowley had taken action and the case had been settled on the basis of the publication of an apology by the Sunday Express in that paper and in the Cork Examiner and the payment of damages to Mr. Crowley.  In spite of this, rumours still spread, and some said the Express had not defended the case because it lacked proof.  Some time afterwards a statement was made which was reported to Mr. Crowley by Mr. Maurice Roche.  Mr. Crowley went to his solicitor, the late Mr. Neville of Bandon, who wrote to Mr. Howe, saying it had been reported to Mr. Crowley that he (Mr. Howe) had alleged Mr. Crowley had shot Collins.  There had been no reply to that letter.  His client now wanted to clear his name in this court.

JOINED IRA AT 17

Replying to his counsel, the plaintiff in evidence said he lived in Kilbrittain and now worked with the Forestry Department, having previously worked with a farmer and the County Council.  He had joined the IRA at the age of 17 or 18 and had risen to become a sectional commander, getting back the rank of captain later.  He had been a member of Tom Barry’s Flying Column.  He was in every jail in Ireland – Mountjoy, Camptown, Macroom Castle, even this courthouse.  He had known General Michael Collins and his family very well.  Their home had been about 14 miles from his.  About the time of the Treaty, he had been in Donegal.

Mr. McCarthy BL- Who sent you there?

Mr. Crowley – Michael Collins, Lord have mercy on the man.  I was in Fermoy Barracks when I got the order to go there.  That was before the double-shuffle started.

Mr. McCarthy BL – What double-shuffle?

Mr. Crowley – Before the two groups broke up – before the Civil War.  I call that the Double Shuffle.

Mr. McCarthy BL –What took you to Donegal?

Mr. Crowley – Michael Collins organized a group to go there – men from Cork, Limerick and Kerry, to go up to the Border.

The plaintiff continued to say that he had been in Ardagh, Donegal, when he heard about Collins’ death.  He had not had hand, act or part in that death, and he would be the last to say he had.

A copy of the Sunday Express containing the article about Michael Collins had been sent to him by a man in Dundalk, and he had subsequently got more of them.  The article stated that he had shot Collins.

Mr. McCarthy BL– Is that false?

Mr. Crowley –Certainly, it is.  How could I? I was in Donegal.

Mr. McCarthy BL– Did you bring an action and was that action settled?

Mr. Crowley – I did.  It was settled in a kind of way at a later stage.

The Sunday Express, he added, had withdrawn everything, and published an apology in their paper and in the Cork Examiner, and apologised in court.  In spite of this, the talk that he had killed Collins continued.  Living all alone, he still feared for his personal safety while the rumours persisted.

Having told Mr. Collins at the opening of the cross-examination that he was well known as ‘Coneen’, the plaintiff was asked if anybody in the village of Kilbrittain really believed he had anything to with the death of Michael Collins, and he replied, ‘They must, or they would not challenge me about it.’

Mr. McCarthy BL– Can you name one person who believes it?

Mr. Crowley – Mr. Howe said it.

Mr. McCarthy BL – Somebody told you Mr. Howe had said it. 

Mr. Crowley –That is right.

Replying to further questions, the Plaintiff said he had met Collins in the Four Courts when it was the Garrison of the Irregulars.  This was before the signing of the Treaty. He had been in Letterkenny at the time of the signing.  On his way to the North, he had called to the Four Courts and met Collins who had an armoured car there.

Asked by Mr Collins BL if he had got £1000 from the Sunday Express the plaintiff replied ‘I did of course, and wasn’t I entitled to it?

Mr. Collins – Did you buy many a good man a pint in the pubs of Kibrittain with the £1000?  

Mr. Crowley – Would you blame me if I did?

Mr. Collins – Is the thousand nearly gone now?

Mr. Crowley – That is my business.

Mr. Collins – Is Mr. Howe to be your next replenisher?  

Mr. Crowley – There is no harm in that.

Maurice Roche, postman, stated that he had a conversation with the plaintiff.  We spoke about the fishing in the stream, and I said to him that a few days previous that that Father Cahalane and I were looking at the flood, and John Howe came along and said, ‘How is Coneen going on or how was he enjoying the money he got from the paper, was it all gone?’ or something to that effect.  We were all in good humour and, as far as I remember, Howe said ‘Sure. I suppose he shot him alright.’  I then possibly made the remark Mr. Crowley was not there at all, and Howe said he was there that day or around that place and He (Howe) believed because Jack Roche had told him, and he did not believe Jack Roche could tell a lie.  Jack Roche is a well-known character in Kilbrittain.   I understood ‘him’ to mean Michael Collins.

Mr. Collins – Did you tell a different story to Mr. O’Driscoll, the solicitor in June?

Mr. Roche – It was the same story, with the exception of one item ‘I suppose he shot him alright.’

Mr. Collins then read a statement alleged to have been made by this witness to Mr. O’Driscoll. In this, the following passage occurred.

‘Howe said something about ‘He was there alright’.  I would not say Howe said, ‘He shot him.’’

Mr. Collins – Did you say that last June?

Mr. Roche – Mr. O’Driscoll asked me did Howe said, ‘he shot him’ and I said, ‘I do not say he said it definitively.’

The defendant, Mr. Howe, on entering the witness box, explained to his lordship that he had been shellshocked in the First World War, leaving him with a certain disability in movement.  Recalling the conversation at the fishing bridge, he began by saying that the name of Michael Collins had never been mentioned, nor the shooting of him ‘because everybody knows Crowley never shot him’. 

According to Mr. Howe, ‘Roche said something about fishing, and he mentioned Con’s name.  We were all full of good spirits. I said, ‘Of course he was in the ambush’ and I was joking when I said it.  I cannot be quite certain about it because it is very hard to remember things when you joke.’

Mr. Collins BL– You know it is alleged you said he shot him all right.

Mr. Howe – There is not a word of truth in that.  I am definite in that.

Rev David Cahalane, who appeared on subpoena from both sides, said his recollection of the conversation at the fishing bridge was rather vague.  To the best of his knowledge, Crowley’s name had come into the conversation, and Mr. Howe passed a remark, ‘Mr. Crowley was there all right.’   The remark was made in a jocose way and there was no malice in it.

JUDGE’S SUMMING UP

Giving judgment, his Lordship said.

I am satisfied that nobody believes that the plaintiff had anything to do with the shooting of Michael Collins.  I am certain that the people in the area from which the plaintiff comes, do not believe it.  There is not the slightest doubt about that, not only that but when the journal in England published that he did, he took action, settled the case for £1000 – a fact which was known all over the place – and the apology was published in that paper and in the Cork Examiner which circulates locally.  A stronger proof of the fact that the person had withdrawn the accusation and that nobody had anything to do with it, I cannot imagine.

Apparently, a person has to be very careful in dealing with the likes of the plaintiff.  He seems to be very thin skinned. Having got £1000, he was out for another thousand in the same easy fashion.  I am satisfied whatever words were spoken were spoken in a jocose fashion. I have not the slightest doubt that it would be far wiser for Howe to say nothing about him.  There was no ill intention, and it was not taken by either party who heard the jocose remark to be made seriously.

In these circumstances it is hard to see why public time and money should be wasted on hearing this action.  Mr. Crowley wants his character cleared and to have it known he was many miles away.  I suppose he is entitled to have it cleared.  I award a half penny damages and make no order as to costs.”

From the Irish Independent, 11 August 1908:

“The news which flashed over the wires on Thursday night telling us that death had cut short the many activities of Caesar Litton Falkiner, brought to every student of Irish history and biography the keenest feelings of regret.  As a writer on the history of his country he had given promise of rising to the highest place, and it is marvellous, notwithstanding the engagements of his official life as an Assistant Legal Land Commissioner, what an amount of literary work he had done of recent years.

An accident, a fatal slip while on a brief holiday in the French Alps, has deprived us of him.  From letters which reached Dublin to-day, it appears that on Wednesday morning he went out from the hotel at Trelichant, intending to take an easy walk, and expecting to be back in a few hours; but evidently, he missed his way, and his body was found next morning at the foot of a precipice some distance from the path which he ought to have followed.

LOVE OF LITERATURE

From his school days, when the daily newspaper was to him a necessity of life, Falkiner’s thoughts and actions were inspired by love of literature.  Too conscientious to neglect his other duties, in the slightest degree, his ardour in the service of letters led him to disregard ordinary comfort and repose, and it was in the evening when his official work was over, on his vacations, and even when travelling in trains, that his writing was done…

At the time of his death, he was engaged on an edition of ‘Swift’s Letters,’ to be published as a companion series to Temple Scott’s edition of Swift’s works and was editing Moore’s poems for the Clarendon Press.

When writing of subjects on which men most differ it was Falkiner’s aim that no word which could cause pain should escape him, and that every honest conviction of his opponents should be respected. In literature, as well as in all other occupations, Falkiner’s acts of friendship were unbounded and unceasing.  With men engaged in similar work he was ever ready to carry on correspondence, and his generosity in spending time to help others was a very striking trait of his character.

His example remains with us.”

According to the Kerry Evening Post, Mr. Faulkiner’s death occurred while making ascent at the Aiguillette peak in the Aiguilles Rouges range of the French Alps near Chamonix.   He had slipped on a rock and fallen over a precipice.  He was 45 years of age.

The Dublin Daily Express described the death as having added ‘one more to the toll of victims which the Alps each year claims of those who seek holiday and recreation amongst its fascinating and dangerous peaks.’

Caesar, of Mount Mapas, Killiney, was a son of the late Sir Frederick Falkiner, Recorder of Dublin, who had died earlier that year, in Madeira, and whose role in Green Street Courthouse was regarded as significant enough to justify his inclusion in ‘Our Judges,’ published by Dublin Society in 1889-90.

Caesar was survived by his wife, the former Henrietta Deane, daughter of architect Sir Thomas Newenham Deane, and two daughters, Dorothy and Irene.  The trio, immortalised in paintings by Walter Francis Osborne, remained active in Dublin Castle society for some years following Caesar’s death; after the First World War they lived abroad.  The Falkiner family papers, including a number of photographic albums available to view online, are with the National Library of Ireland.

Caesar’s Essays Relating to Ireland may be read here.

The Alps seems an unlikely place for a barrister to die but in fact mountaineering was a popular and dangerous sport among barristers around the turn of the twentieth century; there were a number of deaths in this way among English barristers also. 

The Long Vacation could be hazardous!

From the Irish Press, 9 October 1957:

“TOOK BIKES FROM FOUR COURTS YARD

Eight boys and seven girls from eight to eleven years old were charged in the Children’s Court yesterday with taking ten bicycles belonging to officials employed in the Courts of Justice and the Land Registry offices at the Four Courts, and damaging them to the extent of £17.

Evidence was given by Capt. Peter McDonagh, Officer in Charge, Department of Justice, Four Courts, that the children had been in the habit of getting in through the railings. They had done this repeatedly in spite of the vigilance of two whole-time caretakers.

DROPPED FROM WALL

Det. Garda P.K. Kearney read statements made by the children in which they described how they ‘scooted around and bumped into one another’ in the yard.  Boys and girls helped one another to lift a number of the machines to the top of a two-foot wall from which they dropped them down about ten feet on the other side.

Justice O’Riain allocated responsibility evenly for the £17. 14s. 5d. worth of damage and ordered the parents to pay compensation.  He remanded the case for two months, when the children promised that they would not go back to the yard or take bicycles.  He told them if there was no further complaint, and if compensation had been paid by then, he would apply the Probation Act when the case came on again.”

It is a relief to read that the very young offenders were spared the horrors of Irish industrial schools.  Clearly the milder punishment worked – there were no further reports of similar thefts!

From the Chiswick Times, 9 July 1909:

“END OF THE IRISH SUIT

THE ACTION AGAINST A CHISWICK GENTLEMAN

JUDGE’S STRONG REMARKS

The remarkable law suit against a Chiswick gentleman, which had been before the Courts in Dublin for many days, was concluded on Friday last by the Master of the Rolls setting aside a deed of February 20^th, 1875, by which John Boyce, now an imbecile in a Dublin institution, who was found starving in a Naples garret, conveyed all his property to Mr. St John Brenon, a native of Dublin, and now residing at 21, Airedale-avenue, Chiswick.

In giving judgment, the Master of the Rolls said, ‘I set aside this deed because of the overwhelming evidence before me of the imbecility of John Boyce’s dealings with St John Brenton.  I have striven to give some effect to the stray rays of intelligence emanating from some of his letters, and to the other evidence in the case, but I am convinced that when John Boyce executed this deed forty years ago, he was not at the time a man of sound mind and understanding.  The deed was conceived in fraud, it was carried out by fraud, it was bolstered up for a series of years by imprudent fraud, and I don’t know that I have ever had to use such words in connection with the conduct of any man or woman.’

Referring to the defendant Mr. Brenon, his Lordship remarked, ‘I have seen a great many witnesses examined and cross-examined, and I feel bound to say that I have never seen in the box a witness who so nearly missed greatness; and it is vanity that has caused him to be a failure.  Whether he formed too high an estimate of himself and of his powers or not, I don’t know, but I can say that for quickness of intellect, for keen intelligence, for rapier thrusts – lightning thrusts, delivered all round, not excepting the Bench – (laughter) – I never met a witness of his class.  He exercised over me, as I think he must have over many people in court – he threw over me the glamour of his personality.’

Extraordinary remarks, but then, as those who have been following previous posts on the saga of Jephson v Brenon will know, it was a really remarkable case. Not its least extraordinary feature was that no one knew the whereabouts of the actual 1875 deed the subject of the proceedings, which had gone missing many years ago. Thus, although the Master of the Rolls made an order setting aside the deed, he did not make the usual ancillary order for its delivery up into court.  

A week or so later, it was reported that Edward St John Brenon had made an unsuccessful application to the Registrar in Lunacy to be allowed to see John Boyce, now confined to the Stewart Institution for Imbeciles.  It was also separately reported that Brenon had instructed his solicitors Messrs. Horan and Devine to enter an appeal against the decision of the Master of the Rolls, but it seems that no appeal was ever actually entered.

There was, however, a sequel.

In 1912, Messrs Vincent and Beatty, who had previously acted as solicitors for the family of Brenon’s wife, moved their premises from Eustace Street to Dame Street.  In the course of the move, a box was discovered containing the 1875 deed.   The Master of the Rolls being now deceased, Boyce’s committee applied to the Lord Chancellor for an order for delivery up of the deed into court.

Mr Longworth, who had acted as counsel for Mr Brenon in 1909, was present at the application, and  told the Lord Chancellor, that, in justice to his client, he wanted to say that the actual terms of the deed, which no one involved in the case had ever previously seen, threw an extraordinary new light upon the charges of fraud.  It gave Mr. Brenon absolutely no interest at all.  It was simply a deed conveying to Brenon the estate of a trustee for Boyce, who was then abroad, and contained a very proper power of revocation. 

Had the 1875 deed been available to the court in the 1909 proceedings, would there have been a different result?  Probably not; the deed would still have been set aside on the grounds of Boyce’s unsoundness of mind, but without the same tarnishing of Brenon’s reputation.

Boyce survived his old friend Brenon, dying in April 1921, still at the Stewart Institution.  In August 1922 an application was made to the Probate List of the High Court by Mr Poole BL, counsel for Boyce’s nephew, Captain William Finch, to take out letters of administration in respect of his estate. In the course of making the order sought, the Probate Judge, Mr. Justice Dodd, was told of the earlier proceedings. 

On being informed that one of the grounds on which the Master of Rolls had set aside the 1875 deed was that that Boyce was not of sound mind, memory and understanding, Mr Justice Dodd made the following remark:

It was never suggested that Brenon was of unsound mind?

Mr. Poole – Brenon appears to have been a man of exceptional intelligence.

And there the story of the fascinating Edward St John Brenon might appropriately end, were it not for the fact that his son Herbert went on to become a noted US film director, actor and screenwriter.  Clearly he inherited some of his father’s charisma!

More about Herbert Brenon here.