Month: February 2024

From the Penny Despatch and Irish Weekly Newspaper, 24 April 1867, this account of the tragic death of a couple as worthy of remembrance for the story of their love and end as any lawyer who ever walked the halls of the nearby Four Courts:

“A most determined act of double suicide took place on Saturday night, which can hardly be paralleled in the annals of crime in this country, although such occurrences are frequent in France. The unfortunate perpetrators of the miserable deed were Private Henry Hartshorn, 69^th Regiment, aged 26 years, and Amelia Oldham, wife of Sergeant Oldham, of the same corps, aged twenty years. It would appear that about half-past ten o’clock on Saturday night Mr. Daly, 28 Castle-street, and Mr. Joice, 9 Nicholas-street, were passing along Bachelor’s Walk, when they heard a splash in the water of the Liffey near the Metal Bridge, and on going towards the point whence the noise proceeded they observed two figures in the river, one of which appeared to be a soldier.  They both were struggling, and almost immediately disappeared under the stream.

Mr. Daly and Mr. Joice ran quickly to Carlisle Bridge and informed a boatman named Michael Balffe, who, with the assistance of John Taylor, of White’s Lane, at once put off in his boat and rowed in the direction pointed out to him as that in which the people were seen. In a very few moments the boat came up to where the soldier and a woman were floating on the water, and on endeavouring to raise them into the boat it was discovered that they were tied together by the neck by means of a piece of an old black silk scarf. Balffe quickly cut the scarf with his knife, and both bodies having been placed in the boat it was rowed to the steps at Carlisle-bridge, where cars were procured by Police-constables 159 and 69C, upon which the bodies were placed and conveyed to Jervis-street Hospital, after being for about ten minutes in the water.  The resident surgeon used all the known means of resuscitation from drowning, but it soon became too evident that the fearful act of the two unfortunates had been carried to a fatal termination, and that they were dead. The bodies were then conveyed to Bass-place, Livery Stables.

The bodies were both recognized by sergeants of the 19^th on Monday, and the statements made by them threw a light on the cause of the fearful deed. The woman, who was possessed of considerable beauty, had been separated from her husband for some time in consequence of irregularities in her conduct, and it is alleged that a criminal intimacy existed between her and Hartshorn, who was a very fine-looking young man. He had been absent for the previous four days from his quarters in the Linenhall barracks and was to have embarked with his regiment immediately for Canada. The prospect of a separation between the pair, and the poverty to which the woman was reduced, as was evident from her wretched attire, would appear to have so preyed upon them as to induce them to make the desperate resolve which they carried out so effectually. Both were natives of England.”

From the Northern Whig, 21 February 1927:

“Although from very early times convenience led Irish barristers to form a voluntary association resembling the English Inns to which they belonged there was no Inn of Court in Ireland when Edward I came to the throne.  During his reign, however, an Inn was established in Dublin for the purpose of preserving the subordinate connection of the Irish Bar with the English societies.  It was known as Collet’s Inns, and adjoined the courts of Justice, which then stood in the neighbourhood of what is now Exchequer Street.  But even at this time the attitude of the native Irish towards the introduction of English laws and customs was not sympathetic.  The new Inn had not been very long in existence until, in conjunction with the Exchequer, it attracted the unfavourable notice of the O’Tooles, who were located in the Wicklow Mountains and were almost permanently engaged in plundering the surviving countryside.  Accordingly in 1290 when the Deputy and the greater part of the garrison were involved in military manoeuvres elsewhere, this turbulent clan paid an unwelcome visit to the Exchequer.  Having destroyed all the public records, they proceeded to raze the building to the ground, and the pile of smouldering debris which was left to mark the scene of the exploit included the ruins of Ireland’s first Inn of Court.

After this calamity, the Courts of Justice were held at Dublin Castle, and subsequently at Carlow, and the Inn was also in an ambulatory condition.  In 1358, however, the homeless Society found a friend in Sir Robert Preston, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and this worthy gentleman surrendered his noble mansion where the City Hall now stands for an Inn of Court.  Anxious to acknowledge the generosity of their patron, the Society adopted the name of Preston’s Inn, and as such was maintained with advantage to the legal profession for nearly two hundred years.  The Preston family was honoured with a peerage, and received the title of Viscounts Gormanstown, but they did not inherit their ancestor’s generous interest in the welfare of lawyers, for they soon took steps to recover the property which Sir Robert had vacated. His power to make the grant was disputed, and the result was that the Benchers and lawyers were dispossessed.

The Society was again faced with the problem of finding new quarters, but it succeeded in enlisting the sympathy of another benefactor, this time a no less important person than Henry VIII. The King was a valuable friend, for he had on hands a considerable amount of desirable property which had formerly belonged to monastic bodies, and he obligingly placed the suppressed monastery of St Saviour’s at the disposal of the lawyers.  This institution stood on the site which is now occupied by… the Four Courts.  In 1542 Henry assumed the title of King of Ireland, and as a compliment to their Royal Patron the Society took the designation of King’s Inns.  For the remainder of the century it continued in a very prosperous condition, and many persons of high rank were proud to be associated with it.  In 1607 the Lord Deputy, Sir Arthur Chichester, to whom the manor of Belfast had recently been granted, was enrolled, and we are told by a historian that the society was so respectable that Jones, Archbishop of Dublin, and Loftus, Lord Chancellor, became members.

Unfortunately this respectability could not withstand the demoralising influences of the seventeenth century, and the unsettled state of affairs brought about by the civil wars hindered the progress of the institutions, while internal dishonesty wrought havoc on its revenues.  There is ample evidence that shameless pilfering took place.  Rents which should have found their way into the coffers of the Inn were diverted into the hands of the treasurers, who were often men holding exalted offices under the Crown.  Unprincipled under-treasurers owing to lack of opportunity were obliged to confined their attention to the place and the less valuable belongings of the society, but these they embezzled with great zeal.

In spite of the machinations of corrupt officials King’s Inns continued to carry on its usual functions.  As well as being an educational establishment it was a centre of social life in Dublin and scions of many noble and distinguished families were to be found in its halls.  The records mention that stables were erected for the convenience of students with equestrian tastes, and it is evident from the quantities of wine which appear to have been consumed about this time, that the prandial education of these young gentlemen was not neglected.  Perhaps, however, the apparent excesses can be explained by the fact that in addition to students members of the Bench and Bar attended commons, and had also to be catered for.  It seems that even the Lord Chancellor, who was perhaps encouraged by the liberal fare, occasionally honoured the proceedings with his presence.  But he did not dine without due ceremony, for an idem of £2 10s appears in the accounts ‘for a long cushion for the mace to rest upon.’ 

At this time, too, a chaplain was always appointed to supervise the spiritual welfare of the Society, and many men renowned for piety and learning, and who subsequently graced the highest ranks in the Church, filled this office.  Among other names are to be found those of Dean Swift and Archbishop Ussher.  The Inn had allotted to it a number of pews in the neighbouring Parish church of St Michan’s, but it is somewhat doubtful if proper advantage was ever taken of this privilege, for the records show that the keys of these pews were lost, a misfortune which appears to have been borne with complacency.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the monastic building, which had been remodelled to suit the requirements of the Society, commenced to fall into disrepair, and in 1742 the site was acquired by the Government for the erection of the Four Courts.  In consequence of this the Inn for several decades was without a local habitation, although its usual procedure continued uninterrupted, the dinners for the time being held at the tennis court in Townsend Street.

The lack of suitable premises nevertheless became increasingly inconvenient, and eventually it was decided to purchase from the Rev. Richard Robinson, then Primate of Ireland, a plot of ground at the upper end of Henrietta Street.  On this site Lord Chancellor Clare laid the foundation stone of the present building in 1802.  Here the Society is still accommodated, and regulates the affairs of the Bar in the Free State.  No one passing along Constitution Hill, now a sequestrated thoroughfare of Dublin, can fail to be attracted by this handsome edifice, which stands in the quiet retirement of somewhat neglected grounds… In its stately hall, in which generations of distinguished lawyers have eaten their way to the Irish Bar, the dinners, which are thought to form such an essential part of a barrister’s education, are still served with accustomed solemnity by footmen attired in the picturesque livery of the Society.”

Image Credit: (first) (second)

From the Dublin Evening Telegraph, 13 March 1923:

“PITCHED BATTLE

Boys as ‘Republicans’ and ‘Free Staters’

DUBLIN STREET FIGHT

To-day, in the Dublin Police Court, before Mr E.A. Collins, KC, Anthony Casserly, Vincent Casserly, Joseph Maguire, James O’Connor, Nicholas Ward and Patrick Galvin, all residing in the vicinity of Great Brunswick street, and aged between 12 and 16 years, were charged in custody of Detective Officers Coleman and Devaney with wilfully and maliciously damaging a public monument erected to the memory of the late Lord Plunket at Kildare place, by daubing it all over with mud, between 4 and 5 o’c, on Sunday last.

Detective Officer Devaney gave evidence that in consequence of complaints made to the police he visited Kildare Place on Monday morning, and found that Lord Plunket’s monument was badly daubed with mud.  He made inquiries, and as a result he arrested the six defendants and took them to the police station.  He told them he was about to charge them with disfiguring the monument, and having cautioned them, each made a statement to the effect that they were coming from St Stephen’s Green Park, and when they arrived at Kildare Place ‘they commenced to play Republicans and Free Staters, and had a pitched battle, and imagined that the monument was the Four Courts.’ 

The party representing the Republicans took up a position at one side of the monument and the other party – acting as the Free Staters – concealed themselves in another position, and ‘bombarded the Republicans by firing mud at them’ with the result that the monument was daubed all over with mud.  They continued the battle for some time when suddenly a policeman arrived on the scene and they all ran away.

Mr Collins – Was the monument damaged very much?

Detective Devaney – Not very much – but it was daubed all over with mud, which can be taken off by washing it with a hose.

Mr Collins said that apart from the disfiguring of the monument, the throwing of the mud in the public thoroughfare was very objectionable.

All the defendants pleaded guilty, and on their parents consenting to go bail for them each in the sum of £5 for their future good behaviour, Mr Collins allowed them out with a caution.”

The choice of the Plunket monument as the site to re-enact the Battle of the Four Courts was not inappropriate, as its subject was himself intimately connected to that building by the most eminent of legal pedigrees, being the grandson of not one but two Lord Chancellors of Ireland, William Plunket, 1st Baron Plunket, and Charles Kendal Bushe. Lord Chancellor Plunket, an aficionado of bare-knuckle boxing, would almost certainly have enjoyed the pitched battle.

The Plunket family’s influence in a different court continues to this day…

From the Strabane Weekly News, 31 January 1914:

“COUNTY DONEGAL MYSTERY

Disappearance of £300

DOMESTIC SERVANT CHARGED WITH THEFT

Remarkable Evidence of Superstition

At Lifford Crown Sessions – before His Honour Judge Cooke – a domestic servant named Winifred McCarron was charged with the larceny on the 17^{th of} November of £300, the property of Michael McFaul, from the dwelling-house of his brother, Patrick McFaul, of Annagh, near Clonmany, County Donegal, where, at the time the money disappeared, the accused was employed as a servant.

His Honour, in his address to the Grand Jury in reference to this case, said it was a very remarkable one.  On the 4^{th of} November a man called Michael McFaul brought home from the city of Derry the sum of £300, which he got from his brother Patrick.  The money was made up of fourteen £20 notes and two single £10 notes.  On going home, he placed the money in the drawer of the dressing-table in his bedroom, and he did not appear to have looked at it again until the 17^{th of} November, when a mysterious fire occurred. 

Mrs McFaul, the wife of Patrick McFaul and apparently the lady of the house, was working in the kitchen with Winifred McCarron.  The latter asked Mrs McFaul if she heard a noise.  Mrs McFaul said she heard something like a hen fluttering down the stairs.  On going up to Michael’s bedroom they found it full of smoke, and on the fire being extinguished it was found that a suit of clothes belonging to Michael had been burned in the wardrobe, but nothing else in the room had been burned.  The drawer that contained the £300 had some burned paper in it.  The mysterious fact was that the drawer was not burned or scorched in any way, nor was the coverlet of the dressing table scorched in any way. 

Winifred McCarron did not seem to have given any assistance in putting out the fire.  It remained a curious state of affairs, but no suspicion was aroused.    The McFauls did not seem to think that anyone made away with their money.  The impression of the whole household appeared to be that some mysterious agency did away with the money.  However, for some other cause McCarron was dismissed on the 20^{th of} November, and on the same afternoon she attempted to pass £20 notes at the Derry Post Office.  He really did not gather from the depositions what the explanation of the case might be, but he understood the money was not forthcoming and there could be very little doubt that the defendant attempted to pass some of the money in the Derry Post Office.  There was some evidence that she did actually not know what the value of the notes was, and asked a friend in Derry what they were.  This friend told her they were £20 notes, and she ought to be very careful of them.  He only gave these particulars because it was a very remarkable and mysterious case and there seemed to be something beneath the surface with which they were not acquainted.

The defendant pleaded guilty.

Mr Philip O’Doherty, MP, who appeared for the defendant, said the money had been unfortunately destroyed, and it only remained for him to explain the circumstances under which it had disappeared.  He hoped that when he had done so his Honour would see that the poor girl was not to be looked upon as a criminal. 

 In the first place the money was lying for two or three weeks in the drawer It was placed there carelessly and without sufficient security.  It was a great temptation to be left before this girl, and without thinking, perhaps, of the consequences, and out of some chagrin or indignation or anger, imaginary or real, against some person, she thought she would have revenge.  She went to the drawer and took out three notes and burned the rest.  She was illiterate and did not know what the amount of the notes was she took. 

Afterwards she left the employment of the McFauls and went to Derry, and she told a friend there that she wanted to get some change as she had a pound note.  On seeing the note this friend told her it was a £20 note, and that was the first time the defendant knew the value of the note.  They went to the post office, but the clerk was scarce of change but did not change it.  The defendant then went to the house of a woman named McGlynn, and she got restless and nervous and spent a very sleepless night, and she began to recognise for the first time that she had done wrong.  In the morning she burned the three notes to relieve herself any further responsibility and danger, as she thought. 

 She was the only person who could facilitate the McFauls in being recouped by the bank, and she was willing to give any assistance in her power. Unfortunately, the numbers of the notes were not known, and the bank would require greater security on that account.  He believed the girl was mentally deficient somewhat, and when she burned the notes had got into such a condition of mine that she did not know what she was doing.  He asked his honour to take a lenient view of the case and allow the girl out under the Probation of Offenders Act.  She had already been in custody two weeks, and that was during Christmas time.  She had suffered almost unendurable torture, and this would be a life-long lesson to her.

Mr Mackey SC said the recovery of the notes was very important.

His Honour – Are the Crown satisfied the money has been destroyed?

Mr Mackey – We don’t know.  The serious part of the business is that there seems to have been two burnings.  She is undoubtedly illiterate but had means of ascertaining the value of the notes.

His Honour – What are the prospects of the bank?

Mr Mackey said he did not know of any machinery whereby the bank could pay the money unless the notes were identified.  It might be 40 or 50 years before they found they were £300 short in their circulation.

His Honour – There might be different banks.

Mr Mackey – I believe they were all Ulster Bank notes It was such a case that I thought it my duty to send it on to the Attorney-General to see if he would send it to the assizes, but he directed it to be brought at the quarter sessions.

His Honour – What do you suggest?

Mr Mackey – The only thing I could suggest is that you adjourn any sentence to the next sessions, and in the meantime should assist in connection with the recoupment of this money.

His Honour – What do the McFauls say about it?

Mr Mackey – They thought it was the Fanad Ghosts that were responsible.

His Honour – They seemed to have thought it was the ‘wee folk’.

Mr Mackey – Or some sort of spiritualism.  The grandfather’s clock as stopped at the time of the feud, and it was thought there was something inside it.  I don’t know whether it was the Fanad Ghosts that came over from Mr O’Doherty’s constituency that are to blame.  We cannot trace any of the money in circulation of the locality.

Michael McFaul was then examined.

Mr Mackey – You thought the ‘wee folk’ in Inishowen had done away with the money?

Witness – Yes

In reply to the judge, witness said he lost three pound notes out of a box that was locked in August last.

His Honour – You didn’t suspect that anyone burned the notes in the box or drawer?

Witness – No.

His Honour – You thought it was a supernatural or mysterious power that burned your notes?

Witness – Yes.

His Honour – I hope you will be wiser another time.

Mr Mackey – Had you photographs of a young lady along with the notes in the box?

Witness – I had photographs.

Mr Mackey – And they were burned?

Witness – Yes, all in the box.

Mr O’Doherty – There are photographs of a young lady you were going to marry?

Witness – No.

Mr O’Doherty – At that time was it understood you were going to get married to the young lady whose photographs you carried so carefully?

Witness – I didn’t carry them so carefully.

District-Inspector Lowndes, examined, said he was practically convinced that the notes had been destroyed.

His Honour said that he believed the notes had been destroyed, and that the defendant did this out of some unexplained revenge.  He would allow the accused out under the Probation of Offenders Act in her own recognisance of £40, and two sureties of £20 each, to be on good behaviour.  In the meantime, she could assist the McFauls in their endeavour to get the money from the bank. “

Other reports described Ms McCarron as ‘a stylishly dressed girl’.  Reading between the lines, there seems to be hints that she had, once upon a time, attracted the attention of Michael McFaul, only to be thrown over for the young lady whose photographs were kept in the drawer.  Perhaps in the circumstances it was simply easier for the McFaul family to attribute the burning to ghosts?

More about the once-famous Fanad ghost here.

Image Credit