Month: July 2023

The start of the legal Long Vacation in August marked – and continues to mark – the annual abandonment of the Four Courts and the flight of its inhabitants further afield.

But, try as holidaying lawyers might to escape from the law, sometimes Justice draws them inexorably back.

Such was the case with the 78- year-old Father of the Munster Bar George Blake Hickson SC, whose 1865 vacation jaunt to London culminated in unanticipated testimony at the famed Bailey and Middlesex Sessions.

From the Belfast Newsletter 8 September 1865:

“AN IRISH BARRISTER GARROTTED IN LONDON

At the Middlesex Sessions on Tuesday, Thos. Seale, 19, John Kerrick, 18, Henry Williams, 15, and John Williams, 19 were indicted for stealing a gold watch worth £25, the property of George Blake Hickson.

Mr. Blake Hickson was called, and said –

‘I live at Summer Hill, Dublin, and am a barrister and Queen’s counsel.  On Sunday the 6^th of August last, I was going to the pier at the bottom of Essex Steet, a few minutes after four o’clock in the afternoon.  When I came to the stop of the steps going down to the pier, I saw two young men, well dressed, one standing on the second step and the other at the top, apparently playing with capes in their hands.  The one on the second step I identify as John Williams.  John Williams stepped aside, and immediately in front of me.  I said “I beg your pardon.  I want to go down.”  At that moment I got a blow from behind on the left temple, and at the same time I felt both my arms pressed close and tightly by my side, as if I were held by several persons.  One of them laid hold of my watch, which was in my left fob, and tore the watch and chain away.  The man who seized my watch ran down the steps and called out ‘Booty’ The men who were holding my arms disengaged me, and I at once ran after the man who had called out, and, as I was gaining upon him, I lifted up my stick (produced) and intended to strike him, when I was tripped up from behind and thrown forward down the steps.  As soon as I recovered, I followed him.  He turned short to the right at the foot of the steps into a lane, and I lost him.  The chain was dropped just as he turned.  I got up the steps again, but the persons were all gone.  The watch was worth £25.’

George Franks, a little errand-boy, who witnessed the transaction, corroborated the prosecutor’s evidence, and also identified the prisoners.

This witness was cross-examined at considerable length by the different counsel for the prisoners, but nothing material was elicited.

Edward Collins, pier master at the Temple Street Steamboat Pier, proved that the prisoners were together immediately before the robbery.

William Ackrell, Police-Sergeant 15F, was called, and in reply to questions by Mr. Montagu Williams, he said he had only known the boy Franks since these persons had been taken into custody.  He came to the station, and gave a description of the men who, he said, had stolen the prosecutor’s watch.

Mr. Warton, on the part of Kerrick, said that the police were exercising a most unconstitutional power – a power which was rapidly growing up, and this country was threatened with becoming one of the most police-ridden countries in the world.  He commented on the fact the Serjeant Ackrell was not called on the part of the prosecution and said significantly that they might see men in that court with stripes upon their arms who, only a few years ago, were in the lowest call of policemen.  But (said the learned counsel) how did they obtain those stripes?  Why, by getting a number of convictions, and those convictions were obtained by employing little boys to get up cases and to give evidence in their favour.

The Deputy Assistant Judge (Serjeant Dowling) interposed, and said indignantly – ‘I must say, Sir, that you have no right to make these wholesale charges, or to hurl your anathemas indiscriminately on a most respectable body of men.  You have no right whatever to say that they are in the habit of employing persons to get up evidence, or to infer that they suborn them to commit perjury, for if they did so they would be the greatest miscreants that ever diseased society.  You have no right, I saw, to hurl your anathemas in this way, for if they were true this country would then be the most degraded the world has ever seen.’ (Suppressed applause in court)

Mr. Warton – It is well known.

The Deputy Assistant Judge – I say it is not true, and it is not well known.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Beale, Kerrick and John Williams. Henry Williams not guilty.”

Whatever about mistreatment by the police, Beale, Kerrick & Co appear to have been somewhat meanly disparaged by the Newsletter’s headline. Garrotting, strictly speaking, refers to the killing of someone by strangulation, especially with a length of wire. No such act was referenced in the evidence.

Had an attempt been made to carry out such an attack, the perpetrators might have got more than they bargained for. Mr Hickson, from Tralee, was the son of Lieutenant Robert Hickson, famously known for his one and only duel in a candlelit Dublin gaming-room of 1783. The opposing party, an experienced duellist, fell victim to Hickson’s beginner’s luck when the latter’s sword pierced his heart and killed him in a few minutes. Clearly the Hickson family were not to be underestimated in combat!

George Blake Hickson lived to the age of 82, dying at 78 Lower Leeson Street in 1869. There were to be no more duels in the family, but legal sparring continued into the next generation – George’s only son William went on to become a County Court judge. The story of his father’s memorable holiday in London in 1865 survives as a warning to all would-be barrister tourists to take care when holidaying abroad!

Top Image Credit: Wikipedia

Later to become one of the most famous cross-examiners of all time thanks to his performance in the Oscar Wilde libel action, Sir Edward Carson cut his legal teeth in local courts in Waterford, Ireland. A considerable number of his clients were women plaintiffs – read about one of their cases below.

From the Waterford Standard, 26 June 1880:

“JEWELS – A NOVEL CASE

FEEHAN V HANAN

This was an action to recover certain articles of jewellery valued for about £14 –

Mr Carson BL, instructed by Mr Delandre, for plaintiff; Mr Thornton for defendant.

Mr Carson, B.L., in stating the case, said that it was one brought by Miss Mary Feehan, a lady carrying on a very prosperous business in this city, against one Terence Hanan, to recover possession of certain articles of jewellery. 

He regretted to say that the case was not altogether favourable to the gallantry of the young men of Waterford, although during his experience of them he never found them anything but attentive to the gentler sex (laughter).  His client, a young lady of great respectability, was obliged to come into court to recover possession of certain articles of jewellery which were retained by Terence Hanan of the value of about £14.  Although they might not be of any great value to any person else, they were, nevertheless, of the utmost value to her, because they were heirlooms of her family, and bearing the crest of its members.  It was but natural, then that they should be highly prized by her. 

It appeared that a couple of years ago this young lady, being in want of a clerk or manager to assist her in the conduct of her business, engaged the defendant, who came from London, for the purpose.  Therefore, anything he had to say against him would not be derogatory to Irishmen (laughter).  Although a servant in her employment, she was very kind to him, and on one occasion during his illness displayed unmistakeable symptoms of her anxiety for his welfare.  An attachment sprung up between them which it was thought would culminate in a happy alliance. But the same relations did not exist between Terence and Maryanne – the feeling was not reciprocated (laughter) – Terence got ‘rusty’ in fact (renewed laughter).

 The relations between them were such that they led his client to believe that it would be a sacred union.  But it was not so.  She exchanged presents – valuable presents – with him, and when the engagement ceased she expected that he would return those presents which she had made him, as she had returned his.  He would not detain the court further, but would call upon Miss Feehan, who would tell her own story.

Miss Feehan examined by Mr Carson – I believe Miss Feehan you are a merchant in this city?  No – manufacturer (laughter).

When did the defendant enter your employment? In December 1878.

I believe you became very friendly with him?  Well I did (laughter).

And you made him presents? I did.

Presents of jewellery?  Yes, I gave him three diamond shirt studs, two gold collar studs, and one pair of gold sleeve links.

You had those in your possession for some time previous? I bought them.

And the crest of your family was on them, was it not?  Yes.

Did you give him anything else? Yes, some books.

Anything else?  I gave him the jewellery and some books.

Just tell his honor under what circumstances you gave those things.  Was there an engagement of marriage?  There was.

Was it on condition that he was to marry you that you gave those things?  Certainly; I considered we were engaged.

Chairman – When was this? In November 1879.

Mr Carson – How long did this continue? I think up to April – this summer.

Who broke off the engagement?  Well, it was mutual; when I found it was not I asked back the jewellery.

Did he give it?  No, he said he had given the matter into the hands of his solicitors – Dobbyn and Tandy, but I afterwards found out that this was untrue that he had not.

What do you value those goods at? About £10.

Did you buy them? I did.

Cross-examined by Mr Thornton – Now, Miss Feehan, did this gentleman ever proposed marriage to you?

Chairman – I do not think it is necessary to go into that.

Mr Thornton – Well if I do not I don’t know what I am to do.

Chairman – I don’t think you need.

Mr Thornton – It has been made part of the case at the other side, and I think that I am justified in asking the question with all respect to you, sir.

Chairman – Very well.

Mr Thornton – Did he ever propose to you?  He did.

When? On the 17^th November 1879.

And when did you give him the jewellery?  Subsquent to this.

Did you not give him a ring? I did.

Chairman – This is the first I heard of the ring.

Plaintiff – I omitted to state that I gave it to him.

And why did you give him this ring on this occasion?  As a token of friendship.

Then you gave him the jewellery?

Chairman – She says so.

Mr Thornton – I believe you were well satisfied with him up to this? I was.

When did you make him the next present?  On the 23^rd November.

When did you give him the other things?  I gave him the studs, slieve-links and collar studs.

Did you not buy those things? I did.

Where did you buy them? At Morleys.

Then it is not true that they were heirlooms of the family as Mr Carson stated? (No answer)

Now, Miss Feehan, didn’t you give him those things unconditionally? I did not.

Did you give him them at Christmas? Some time about then.

Didn’t you give them to him as a Christmas gift? I did not.

And when did you ask them back from him? In May.

Now was there any engagement when you gave them to him?  I considered there was.

Chairman – Now, what is the good of all this, Mr Thornton.

Mr Thornton – With great respect, I think there is.

Chairman – Would you want a young lady who considers herself engaged, when making a present to the gentleman, to say ‘Now I give you this on condition that you will marry me, and if you don’t you will have to give it back?

Mr Thornton – Oh no.

Chairman – I don’t know what you did when you were about being married, but –

Mr Thornton – I forget, it was so long ago (laughter).

Mr Delandre – He ought not, for he was married twice (renewed laughter).

Chairman – Well I know that when I was making my wife a present I didn’t say ‘If you don’t marry me you will have to give this back.’

Mr Thornton – I don’t doubt that (laughter).

Chairman – It is absurd to suppose they do (laughter).  Human nature is the same.  There was a great man in Cork who used to say we are all of the same material – human nature.

Mr Thornton – And very bad material it is in some cases (laughter).

Chairman – There is no use in pressing this young lady.  Sure I know how it was done (laughter).

Mr Thornton – I suppose so (laughter).

Chairman – What did he give you, or did he give you anything?

Plaintiff – Yes; he gave me a locket with the name ‘Harriette’ embossed on it.

Did you return it to him? I did; he still retains my gifts to him.

Mr Carson examined defendant, who is endowed with a very rich brogue – Why don’t you return the girl the jewellery?  Well, in the first place they were given to me simply as presents, and I do not think I am legally bound to return them (laughter).

Chairman – I am afraid you are mistaken as to nationality – Mr Carson (great laughter)

Mr Carson – I rather think so your honor (renewed laughter)

Chairman – What countryman are you? (great laughter).  I am an Irishman (laughter), but I am not a Waterford man.

Chairman – Mr Carson was saying you were from London? (laughter) Lawyers often make mistakes (laughter).

Chairman – But judges never do (laughter).

Mr Carson – Not on legal points (laughter).

Chairman – Well Mr Carson have you anything more to ask this gentleman?

Mr Carson – Oh yes, did you give her any presents? I did not.

And what about the locket? (laughter).  She almost demanded the locket and I had to give it to her (laughter).

But you didn’t demand the jewelery of her? (laughter) I did not; she forced me to take it (laughter)

Chairman – Now mind what you say.  How did she force you?  Had she a revolver in her hand? She had not; but if she had not a revolver she had an ink bottle (great laughter).

Chairman – Remember you are on your oath, and that is nothing to be trifled with.  I do not think you should have allowed this case to come into court at all, much less to try and make light of it.  You made her a present which she returned, and you still retained her presents.

Mr Carson – Do you think it honourable to retain those things? I do.

Chairman – Well I don’t.

Mr Carson – Are you a Lothario? (laughter)? I am not.

Chairman – What is a Lothario, Mr Carson? (great laughter).

Mr Carson – I don’t think I need tell your honor (laughter)

Chairman – I wish you would.

Cross-examined by Mr Thornton – Was there ever an engagement between you?  There never was.

And did you consider those gifts given to you with a view to matrimony?  I did not.

You did not take them conditionally?  I did not.

Were they forced upon you? They were.

Chairman – You need not go into that Mr Thornton, she evidently made the presents believing that this man to whom she made them, was to be her future husband, and it is not a nice thing at all that he should have to be brought into court to compel him to do what any honourable man would do at once.

Mr Thornton – Was there any engagement when she gave you those things?  There was not; I never took the things on condition, or with the understanding that I was to marry her [This concluded the evidence.]

Chairman – What is your defence, Mr Thornton?

Mr Thornton – Why, that the articles were given as presents, unconditionally.

Chairman – Would you have me believe that Miss Feehan did not think there was an engagement at the time those presents were made.

Mr Thornton – She may have, but they were presents all the same.

Chairman – Miss Feehan considered there was an engagement, and made those presents to this man believing that he was to be her husband.  Your client says that there was no engagements, but having heard Mis Feehan to-day swear that she believed there was an engagement, and that it was on the strength of this engagement the presents were made, and doubtless knowing this before, he should have returned the presents, and not have allowed the case to be brought to court, and the feelings of this lady hurt.  I do not think that there is an honourable man in England, Ireland, or Scotland, who under such circumstances, would act as this man has acted, and keep the presents.  He heard Miss Fehan today say that she believed there was an engagement, and yet he allowed the case to be proceeded with, and says many things that he should not say.  I am sorry for the sake of our country that Mr Carson was not right – and that he was a Saxon.  There was really no defence.

Mr Thornton – With all due respect, I think there is.

The Chairman pointed out that there was one great principle of law – that to make a contract binding it required two consenting minds.  Miss Feehan had made those presents believing that Hanan was to be her husband, and she accepted his gift in the same spirit.  Finding what she considered to be an engagement broken off, she at once returns the present he had given her, and asks that he should return those she had given him.  In point of honour and law, he should have given them back, and his honor would therefore give a decree for that amount.

Defendant – I will give them back at once.

Chairman – You should have done so before the case was brought to court.

The defendant said the reason he retained the articles was that plaintiff owed him a large sum of money.

The Chairman said it was very cruel to bring the case into court at all – it was so hurtful to the feelings of the plaintiff.  Defendant might as well have struck her.  Her feelings towards him –

Defendant – But I am not responsible for her feelings.

The Chairman remarked that although not responsible for her feelings, the defendant, or any man, should do nothing to offend the feelings of a woman.  Woman was the weaker, and if she relied upon man, he should in every way consult her feelings and never offend them.

The defendant undertook to return the jewellery.

Mr Carson – And there are some books.

Defendant – I know nothing of them.  She should have made out a list.

Chairman – That is the business – pure business again.  – A couple of trifling cases having been disposed of, the court adjourned.”

Image Credit

From the Dublin Evening Mail, 6 September 1841:

“BELFAST PETTY SESSIONS – WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1

RAISING THE WIND BY RAISING GHOSTS

Our readers, we are sure, will not have forgotten an extraordinary case, tried at our Quarter Sessions Court, in which an old wretch, named Milliken, and her husband, were convicted of swindling Mrs Coburn, an inn-keeper of North-street, out of upwards of £200 by working on her credulity with so much art, through the means of her own servant girl, that they brought her to believe that the spirits of her two deceased brothers had appeared to her.  The money was extorted principally as bribes to the female prisoner to get the ghosts ‘laid,’ as the superstitious phrase it. The result was that the female culprit was sentenced to transportation for seven years, and her husband, a less active party in the affair, to some months’ imprisonment, and hard labour.

Through the activity of Constable Kain, of the local police, who has watched, with a keen eye, the movements of another of the swindlers, that person (a fellow named Bradley, but who had figured under the alias of Doherty) was secured, on Monday evening last, in North-street, and brought up to-day, to answer for his share in the felony…

Mrs Coburn, having been sworn, deposed to the facts of the gross fraud of which she had been made the victim. The following is the substance of her testimony: – Between two and three years ago, the woman Milliken came privately to her, and warned her that ‘there was a weighty matter coming against her,’ the nature of which, however, she would not consent to explain, except ‘for a consideration.’  Having excited the superstitious dread of the witness, she obtained £4 from her, on condition that she should proceed to the residence of the Most Rev. Dr Crolly, and endeavour to prevail upon him to ‘lay’ the ghosts of her (Mrs Coburn’s) two deceased brothers, whom she had raised, with the assistance of a servant-girl in the house, a relative of the pretended sorceress, and who, it would seem, personated one of the spirits, and shared in the plunder of her mistress.

Dr Crolly was not at home to the witch, and she obtained a further sum of £5 to pay her expenses to Derry, where, she averred, there lived a holy man, who would do the business as well as Dr Crolly. She returned, and assured her dupe that all was now ‘as right as a rivet.’  Finding, however, that Mrs Coburn ‘bled’ freely, the game was kept up; and the house was nightly alarmed, and her slumbers disturbed, by the nocturnal gambols of the uneasy ghosts, who were most unquiet when Millken was most pressing for money.

Milliken again pretended to set out on a pilgrimage to ‘Rock Clifton. her cabalistic name for Dr Crolly’s palace, but whose topography few are acquainted with; but, ere she reached it, she tumbled off a coach, broke her leg, and was laid on her death-bed, from which she wrote a letter to the haunted woman, demanding funeral expenses.  The money was directed to be placed upon the drawing-room table, from which an unseen hand was to convey it to Milliken. Of course it disappeared.  The girl Bradley said that Mrs Coburn’s two dead brothers came and lifted the cash, and then vanished through the ceiling. 

The accomplice was enjoined to proceed to the chapel, on the next Sunday morning, to meet the ghost of Milliken. She did so, and returned in a well-feigned fright, at the bobbery which the defunct mistress of magic had kicked up in the house of prayer, where she had blown out the candles, and turned everything topsy-turvey.  The most interesting incident in the ‘tale of terror’ was, the production of several letters, purporting to be written from the grave, or ‘Lord knows where,’ by the two brothers, and which, – so astonishing was the credulity of the ‘victimised’ – she believed to be bona fide epistles.

There were, of course, pressing demands or money for Millikin’s use, and were proved, on the trial, to have been written by an old schoolmaster, by her dictation.  In this way the witness confessed that she had been done out of upwards of £200. The fraud was at last discovered, and put a stop to, by the husband of the prosecutrix. After the sorceress had, by her written account, ‘gone to her own place,’ she bequeathed her magic want to the prisoner Doherty, or Bradley, and put him up to another plan for ‘carrying on the war’ – she, of course, not being too far off to share the booty thus procured.  Doherty represented that he was the agent for the delivery of a legacy of £1000, with plate, &c, bequeathed to Mrs Coburn, by a third brother, whom he alleged to be deceased in New Orleans. On this representation, and by means of a letter purporting to be written by one of the ghosts, Doherty had obtained in all £10; but, of course, the legacy could not be conjured up so easily as the ghosts, and Mrs Coburn was left to bewail the loss of her £10 in hard cash, and £1000 in prospectu.  Doherty made a lucky and prudent escape and was never seen in Belfast until the day already named, when, as bad luck for him would have it, Constable Kain invited him to take a walk ‘down street.’

The evidence fully satisfying Mr Molony of the prisoner’s guilt, he was committed for trial at the October Quarter Sessions.”

Image Credit