Month: January 2024

From the Dublin Evening Mail, 3 April 1866:

“MR MACDONOGH, Q.C., AND MR HERON, Q.C.

At the Cork Assizes, in the action of Shea v Honan, while the plaintiff was under cross-examination by Mr Macdonogh, the following discussion took place:

MR HERON – As long as Mr Macdonogh doubts the credibility of my witness I shall animadvert on it.

MR MACDONOGH – I can’t suffer this.

THE CHIEF BARON – I think it is not –

MR HERON – Am I not entitled to speak when the witness’s credibility is doubted?

MR MACDONOGH – Will you listen to the court, sir?

MR BUTT – That is not right, now.

MR HERON – I ask my learned friend to withdraw that observation both in manner and in matter.

MR MACDONOGH – I ask you to listen to the court.

HIS LORDSHIP – I do not think the first observation calls for any remark.

MR HERON – No, but the latter decidedly does.

MR BUTT – It is better if we all keep quiet.

HIS LORDSHIP – I must say that Mr Macdonogh has been commenting too much on the evidence of the witness.

MR HERON – Now, that we may go in good humour, I will ask my learned friend to withdraw the observation.

HIS LORDSHIP – Oh, he does; I will do it for him.

MR HERON – If he does not, you will? Very well, my lord.

At a subsequent period of the day the amenities were resumed thus:

MR MACDONOGH– Have you got any subscription towards the action?

Witness (loudly) – Not half a farthing, nor do I calculate upon it either

MR MACDONOGH– That’s right

WITNESS – It is right

MR HERON – My lord, Mr Macdonogh has no right to make such an insulting observation to the witness.

MR MACDONOGH said his observation was not insulting.

Witness – Oh let the gentleman go on, Mr Heron. I don’t mind.

MR MACDONOGH – You see he knows the difference of it better than you.

MR HERON – Really, I must ask you not to address me. You refused to withdraw an insulting remark you made towards me a while ago.

MR MACDONOGH – Anything I say I accept the responsibility of, either here or elsewhere.

HIS LORDSHIP said it was more the manner than the matter of Mr Macdonogh’s remark to Mr Heron that was objectionable.

MR HERON – It was most discourteous, my lord

HIS LORDSHIP – And I understand Mr Macdonogh to at once withdraw, or indicate the withdrawal of the discourtesy.

MR BUTT – Mr Macdonogh will pardon me, but I certainly did feel there was great discourtesy in his manner when he addressed my friend Mr Heron as ‘Sir;’ and I am bound to say to Mr Macdonogh that if I were in Mr Heron’s place I would have felt excessively annoyed, more by the use of the word ‘Sir’ than by the angry tone in which it was used, and I did expect Mr Macdonogh would say he did it in a hurry and regretted it.

HIS LORDSHIP– I can say no more about it.

MR BUTT – Oh! None of us can say more about it now.”

Serjeant Heron, appropriately for one named after a waterbird, was, among other things, a great fisherman, who died while engaged in playing a salmon on the Corrib in 1881. According to a report in the Western Daily Press of 18 April 1881,

“in the excitement of the sport, he was seized with apoplexy, and although aid was promptly procured, sank in two hours after the attack. He would have fallen into the river, which is very rapid at the place, had not an attendant caught him. Another attendant took Serjeant Heron’s rod and killed the salmon.”

The same article reported that the Serjeant was

“well known and highly esteemed in Galway, having held for some years a professor’s chair in the Galway College. He was educated in Trinity College, Dublin, and… he was entitled to a classical scholarship by examination, but, being a Roman Catholic, was debarred by the statutes and constitutions of the University from holding it. He raised the question, however, before the Visitors, and the result of the struggle with which he made was the scholarships for Roman Catholics were soon afterwards established. When the Queen’s Colleges were instituted he became one of the first professors, but, having joined the Irish bar in 1848 and obtained extensive practice, he resigned his chair. He represented the county Tipperary for some years in Parliament, but was put out by the Nationalists, to whom he was obnoxious on account of his moderate Liberal opinions. He filled the office of law adviser at Dublin Castle under Mr Gladstone’s Government during the Fenian troubles, and recently his connection with the Government was partially renewed by his appointment as third Serjeant on the death of Serjeant Armstrong, Q.C… Mr Heron was of a genial, kindly disposition, and had a large circle of private friends.”

The other participants in the above courtroom drama were the colourful Francis Macdonogh (or Mcdonogh) QC, about whom more is written here, Irish Nationalist leader Isaac Butt QC, and Lord Chief Baron Christopher Palles.

Good to know that Mr Butt’s nationalist sympathies did not preclude him from intervening on the part of Mr Heron – or perhaps, court combatant that he was, he simply couldn’t refrain from intervening in an entertaining intercounsel melee!

The case in issue, Shea v Honan, known as ‘the Butter Case’, related to the question of whether the defendant had usurped the control and management of the Cork Butter Market. It lasted fourteen days at trial, and resulted in a verdict for the defendant, represented by Mr Macdonogh, but subsequently an order for a new trial was obtained. The dispute seems to never have been conclusively resolved – one account notes that the jury on the second trial failed to agree.

Although the case may never have had a definite ending, the above courtroom dialogue serves to illustrate the unwritten rule that calling opposing counsel ‘Sir’ or, indeed ‘Madam,’ in court may, depending on the manner of the delivery, be interpreted not as a courtesy but an insult…

Image Credit

From Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 12 February 1753, this account of an extremely long-lived resident of Dublin 7:

“IRELAND
DUBLIN, Jan 30. On Sunday fe’nnight died at the Widow’s House of St. Michan’s Parish, Mrs Devoureux, aged 119; she was born in Scotland, and remembered perfectly the Martyrdom of King Charles the First, but was a little defective in her Hearing.”

The former Widows’ House of St Michan’s Parish (image above) is still standing within the St Michan’s Church grounds, visible side-on from Church Street.

The 119 year old Mrs Devoureux appears to have outlived Katherine Plunket, one of the many grandchildren of Lord Chancellor of Ireland William Plunket, and previously regarded as the oldest person ever to have died in Ireland, who died in 1932 at the age of nearly 112.

Could the fact that the Widow’s House is located on the site of former Oxmantown Wood, the remains of which still survived in her lifetime, have anything to do with Mrs Devoureux’s longevity?

Interesting fact: the Devoureux (or Devereux) surname survives in Church Street to this day!

Image Credit

From the Dublin Morning Register, 19 July 1838:

“THE DUBLIN POLICE OFFICE

A demure-looking old gentleman, named Moses Miller, came to the office to complain of a law-student, bearing the appropriate name of Joseph Law, for having given him annoyance, and for continuing to occupy apartments in his house, contrary to his wish.

The magistrates said that, with regard to the latter part of the charge, they could not interfere; if he kept illegal possession, complainant should eject him.

Mr Miller – I dread entering into anything like a protracted suit with him, as he is studying the law; I wish to be summary; I dread law.

Magistrate – As you dread the law, you must act according to it.  State your complaint.

Complainant – Well, your worship, Mr Law came to me, and told me that he had put his name down at the King’s Inns as a law student, and took two garret rooms from me; I thought he would have no person in the rooms but himself; but instead of that, he brought three other persons there, whom he said were students also, and made a profit on me, by setting them lodgings; and at night, your worship, when I do be at my prayers, he is perpetually going on making speeches, as if addressing a jury, and when I called to him to desist, he asked me did I ever hear of Demosthenes, or Demochares his nephew; I said I never heard of any such people in my life, nor did I want to know them; I thought, your worship, that he was proposing them to me as bailmen for the rent, and I told him that I would forgive him a week and three days that he owed me, if he would leave the house, but he said in reply that I was an ignorant old ass, that he was practising oratory like Demosthenes, and that he would do so as long as he remained in the house.

Mr Law said he submitted to the magistrates that there was no ground of complaint against him, he had a right to speak in his own apartments, and he did no more.

Mr Miller – I think you are a deceiver.  I am sure such a clown as you are cannot be a law student, for although you live in a garret, when you are speaking of the floor of your room you call it the ground.

The magistrates dismissed the complaint, telling Mr Miller if he was not satisfied with his tenant, he should eject him in the regular way.”

Image Credit

From the Newry Examiner and Louth Advertiser, 7 June 1848:

“AUDACIOUS PROCEEDING

A proceeding has taken place, which for monstrous violation of the rights of the subjects of this realm has never been exceeded – we know not, indeed, if any act of the same kind has ever been attempted – certainly never in any country save ours.

The circumstances are these. Dr Gray, of the Freeman’s Journal, and Mr Joseph Henry Dunne, a prominent member of Conciliation Hall, were to have been called to the Bar on Friday. All their certificates of having served their terms, English as well as Irish, had been lodged several days since with the proper officer, and from him they received on yesterday an intimation that they should present themselves this day, at half-past ten o’clock, in the Queen’s Bench, to be sworn.

Accordingly, they did present themselves, paid some fees, which were received, of course – put on the gown and wig, and in that costume were received by Mr Justice Moore, who called upon them to take the necessary oaths.  Having complied with this form – taking the oath of allegiance among others – Doctor Gray and Mr Dunne then left the Queen’s Bench in company with other gentlemen also to be called to the bar, and proceeded to the Bencher’s Chambers, in the rere of the Four Courts, there to take the barrister’s oath, and to be what is technically termed ‘called.’  

The hour was 11 a.m. when the gentlemen presented themselves to the Benchers.  Their companions had each their ‘call,’ and they were left to wait. At length at two o’clock, Mr Dobbs, the officer of the Benchers, came forward and told them that the ‘consideration of their memorials had been postponed till next term ‘ – in other words, the Benchers refused to call them.

Was ever anything more monstrous than this? Here are two gentlemen against whom there is no charge , political or social – neither sedition, treason, or immorality – nether debt nor ‘felony’ – and yet the Benchers in Ireland inflict upon them a punishment, the severest, morally speaking, which can be adjudged – one by which their hopes and fortunes may be ruined. Surely, there is neither law nor equity in this. It is a pure exercise of arbitrary power, and nothing else.

We understand the reason assigned for refusing Dr Gray is, that he publishes in his journal ‘seditious’ writings. Why not prosecute him if that is so? But how dare they punish him for that of which he is not only not found guilty but is not accused….”

The Weekly Freeman’s Journal, of which Dr Gray was the proprietor, subsequently featured a full account of a dialogue between its owner and Lord Chancellor Brady which had taken place in the Court of Chancery immediately after the Benchers had refused to call the former:

“Mr Gray rose, and, addressing the Chancellor, said –

My Lord Chancellor – If you look to the printed list now before you at No 6, you will find my name thus ‘John Gray Junior, Esq, third son of John Gray, of Claremorris in the County of Mayo, Esq certificate signed by John O’Donoghue Esq, to be proposed by the Right Hon the Lord Chief Baron.’ In pursuance of the notice, which I received from the official at the Queen’s Inns, I applied to know whether all my certificates were quite correct, and whether I had gone through all the necessary forms to entitle me to be called to the Irish Bar. He informed me by letter that all my documents were correct and intimated that it would be necessary for me to appear in court at half-past ten this morning. In accordance with that intimation I appeared, according to instructions, in bar costume, and by the direction of the Registrar of the Queen’s Inns proceeded to the Queen’s Bench, and there took the prescribed oaths before one of the justices of that court, Mr Justice Moore, and subscribed to the roll presented to me in the usual manner.  I then, my lord, proceeded by direction of the officer of the court, to the benchers’ chamber, and after waiting some hours, a gentleman, who I understand to be secretary to the benchers, informed me that the benchers had decided on not admitting me to the bar. I then applied for an interview with the benchers, in order to ascertain what was their reason for that decision, and that request having been refused, I now apply to you, my lord, to know whether there is any moral stain on my character to justify my exclusion from the Irish bar, I having –

Lord Chancellor – Oh certainly not, Mr Gray, but I wish to set you right on one point. The decision of the benchers, as far as I am at liberty to mention it to you, was that the consideration of your memorial should be postponed until Michaelmas term next.

Dr Gray – I wished to be admitted to the presence of the benchers, in order to ascertain from them what was the reason of this postponement, which was manifestly not caused by any omission of mine.

Lord Chancellor – Really, I can do nothing in the matter, and it is only throwing away your own time and that of the public to press it on me any further. As I said before, I have no power to alter the decision of the benchers and I am not at liberty to make any communication to you, save that the consideration of your memorial has been postponed. If you have any complaint to make of the benchers it must be by memorial.

Doctor Gray – I merely apply to your Lordship as the head of the Irish bar to know, why having fulfilled the prescribed course, and having his day gone through the  necessary forms and taken the necessary oaths I am now excluded because of my politics?

Lord Chancellor – I really cannot comment any further.”

On 31 May 1850, the Dublin Mercantile Advertiser reported that Dr Gray’s memorial was still before the Benchers and, after more discussion, had yet again been reserved for consideration ‘to a future day in the present term.’

The Benchers’ reluctance to admit Gray to the Bar seems to have stemmed from his involvement in the movement for Repeal of the Act of Union. Gray’s support of Irish barrister and politician Daniel O’Connell had previously resulted in his and O’Connell’s conviction for conspiracy and sedition in 1843.

Although it does not appear that Gray ever succeeded in being called to the Irish Bar, he assisted, through his counsel at the 1843 conspiracy trial, Gerald FitzGibbon, in making legal history when remarks by the latter famously provoked the then Attorney-General into issuing an in-court challenge to a duel.

Gray was knighted in 1863 in honour of his work in securing a clean water supply for the city of Dublin. Following his death in 1875, Gray’s statue was erected in O’Connell Street in appreciation of his ‘many services to his country.’ It remains in place to this day.

Possibly not the Benchers’ finest hour?

From the Weekly Irish Times, 19 December 1903, this story of a canine Boer War hero of the highest level regrettably forced to seek ‘wuff justice’ in the Dublin Police Court:

“A FAMOUS DOG IN THE POLICE COURT

On Tuesday, in Southern Police Court, before Mr Drury, a famous dog which formerly belonged to Commandant Philip Botha, but which now belongs to the Royal Irish Rifles stationed at the Richmond Barracks, figured in a case in which it was alleged that he had been cruelly treated by a man named Ernest Warmingham, who is employed in the canteen kept at the barracks. The bulldog, which though not at all savage-looking was muzzled, was in charge of Colour Sergeant Edwards. The animal was led into court, it may be said, decorated with the honours of war, for attached to his coat with green facings were South African medals with clasps. He was conducted to the witness box untroubled about the evidence which might be given in the case. From a record of his career it appears that in the course of the war in South Africa he was captured in September 1900, by the 2^nd Royal Irish Rifles Mounted Infantry at Commandant Philip Botha’s farm in the Doornberg. From that time until the end of the war he trekked with the Rifles, and was frequently in action. On one occasion he was wounded. He trekked from Griqualand in the west to Bastutoland, and was with General French’s column in Cape Colony.

Mr Drury, taking note of Her late Majesty’s South African medal with three clasps, and the King’s South African medal with two clasps, said he was the most distinguished dog in the country.

Colour Sergeant Edwards gave evidence to the effect that the dog was his property. On the 2^nd inst., he missed the dog from Richmond Barracks, and after searching for him he found the animal in a bad state, bleeding from wounds in his legs and from a cut on the head. Witness, in reply to Mr Drury mentioned, as above stated, how the dog became a pet of the regiment. He stated they were at a lot of expense in bringing him home.

Private John McHugh deposed that he saw Warmingham thrashing the dog with a stick outside the canteen at Richmond Barracks. The defendant broke the stick in the course of the beating and then kicked the dog. When he (witness) remonstrated the defendant retorted that the dog ought to be ‘damned well shot.’

Private Donnan gave corroborative evidence.

Richard Downes, employed in the canteen, stated he heard dogs fighting outside, and when he went out he saw the defendant beating the dog with a stick.

The defendant deposed that he was canteen manager at the Richmond Barracks. On the 2^nd instant while proceeding to the canteen with an Irish terrier the bulldog attacked the smaller dog, and in order to separate them witness had to use his stick. He admitted he broke the stick on the dog, but denied having kicked the animal. The dog, he asserted, had been twice sentenced to be shot for worrying other dogs.

Mr Drury – Have you witnesses to prove this?

The defendant – I can swear what they can prove.

Colour Sergeant Edwards denied that the dog had been sentenced to be shot. The dog was a most inoffensive animal.

Mr Drury said there was clear evidence that gross and unnecessary violence had been used, and he would fine the defendant 1 pound with 1 pound costs.”

Image Credit: Encore Editions