1880’s

Bigamist John Lamley Conn (1812-1893)

Martin Forristal, of Ballinlammy, Glenmore wrote an excellent article entitled “Mount Ida” which may be found on our guest authors’ page by clicking here. In tracing the history of Mount Ida, Martin revealed that John L. Conn (1812-1893) of Mount Ida was a bigamist keeping his lawful wife in Glenmore and his mistress and children in Dublin.

While searching for other information we came across two articles involving John L. Conn. The first is from May 1859 and involves the attempted burglary of Mount Ida. The second article is from May 1883 and involves a criminal case brought against a Glenmore man named Patrick Walsh for intimidation. Both newspaper accounts provide an interesting glimpse into the state of criminal justice in Glenmore in the mid to late 19^th century.

Attempted Burglary of Mount Ida, Glenmore

On Wednesday the 4^th of May 1859 men attempted to burgle Mount Ida. The following account was found in the Waterford Mail (Tues. 10 May 1859).

Burglarious Attempt—We regret to hear that on Tuesday night, or rather Wednesday morning last, between the hours of 12 and one o’clock, a party of burglars attacked Mount Ida House, the residence of John L. Conn, Esq., situate at Rochestown, barony of Ida and county of Kilkenny. They forced the shutters of a window in the east wing of the building, and were in the act of breaking open a door, with an iron bar and a wooden bar acting as levers under it, when the noise was heard of one of the maid servants who slept in the apartment over it, and who ran up and called her master. Mr. Conn, with more courage than prudence, sallied out armed with a gun, but the scoundrels heard the opening of the lock and ran off, leaving their implements behind, and the night being very dark, Mr. Conn did not get a shot at them, they were, however, disappointed of their booty.

We are astonished to hear that there is no magistrate in the district, which contains at least 30 square miles, and that the nearest police station is several miles off, and we have no hesitation in saying that the government authorities incur a deep responsibility if this exceptional state of things be not at once rectified. We hear the constable of the nearest police station made an examination of the place the following evening.

This article indicates that in 1859 there was no police barracks in Glenmore Village.

Glenmore Intimitation Case

Nearly 25 years later, a former tenant of John L. Conn was charged and convicted of intimidation concerning the letting of his former 40 acre farm. The account of the trial appeared in the Waterford Standard (Sat. 19 May 1883, p. 3). Patrick Walsh in May 1883 was in the employment of Mr. Cody and was charged with intimidation under the provisions of the Prevention of Crimes Act.

It was alleged that on 3 May 1883 at Rathinure without legal authority, the defendant used intimidation toward Michael Roche, when he advised him through his cousin to abstain from doing what he had a legal right to do—namely, to become tenant of a certain farm on the estate of John Lamley Conn, of Mount Ida. A special petty sessions court was held at Kilmacow on 17 May before Mr. Bodkin R.M. (Resident Magistrate) and H. Thynne, R.M. Mr. Hartford, the Kilkenny Crown Solicitor, prosecuted, and the defendant had no legal representation.

The defendant, Patrick Walsh, and his brother John Walsh, had been in possession of a farm which was the property of John Lamley Conn. Their uncle had the farm before they took possession. They fell into arrears on the rent, but went to John Conn and came to an agreement that in consideration for a sum of money, they agreed to give up the land and not attempt to redeem it. At the time of the trial the farm had been idle for three years.

On the 5th of February 1883, Michael Roche sent a proposal to John Conn that he would rent the farm for £1 per acre. On 3 May 1883 about ten o’clock in the evening the police were on patrol at Glenmore. The police observed the defendant with his brother John Walsh and in the company of James Costello.

The police overheard the defendant speak to John Roche, a cousin of Michael Roche. It was alleged that in a lane of Rathinure, Patrick Walsh said, “That is my land; I had the land before Conn had it. What do I care about Conn, even if he has two bobbies [police] mind him—I will pull the trigger, for I will swing for any person who takes that land.” [At this time murder was a hanging offence. The defendant’s alleged use of the phrase “I will swing” was a threat to kill anyone who took the land.]

Witness 1: John Lamley Conn

The first witness called was John Lamley Conn who was summoned to appear. It appears from the newspaper account that he would not have attended except that he received a summons. Conn testified that he lived at Mount Ida and had some land in Rochestown. He owned the lands in Rochestown for about 40 years. He acquired them by purchase in the Court of Chancery.

Conn stated that he knew the defendant and his brother John Walsh, and the farm that they once occupied was about 40 acres. They fell in arrears and were given every facility to redeem the farm. They came to Conn and asked for money as good will. Conn gave them money in exchange for them voluntarily leaving the farm. Conn testified that he had not seen the defendant since he left the farm voluntarily.

Witness 2: Constable Williiam Broderick

The second witness was Constable William Broderick who testified that he and Sub-Constable Patrick Donohue were patrolling on 3 May 1883. While in Rathinure in a lane off the public road he heard Patrick Walsh say, “That is my land. I had that land before; what do I care if Conn has two bobbies minding him. What do I care about Conn?”

Constable Broderick then testified that he believed the defendant said, he would “pull his finger if any man would take the land.” He testified that the sub-constable said that he heard the defendant say that he would “pull the trigger.” He testified that the defendant said, “advise him, advise him—you know him; for I will swing for any man who takes that land.”

The constables jumped over the ditch into the lane and from John Roche obtained the names and addresses of all the men present. The defendant walked past the constables. When the constables caught up to the defendant the defendant was asked about the language he used concerning Conn. The defendant replied that “they would be all good friends yet.”

The defendant asked Constable Broderick concerning his character and the Constable responded that he only knew the defendant about 8 months, he knew nothing against the defendant and had heard nothing against him. Magistrate Thynne asked if the defendant was “worse of drink that night.” Constable Broderick replied that the defendant had drink taken, and he had been coming from the public house, but he could have been justified in summoning him for drunkenness.

Witness 3: Sub-Constable Donohoe

Sub-constable Donohoe was called and sworn and stated that he did not want to correct the information provided by Constable Broderick. At this point the Magistrates wanted Mr. Hartford to examine Mr. Roche. Mr. Hartford refused and Magistrate Bodkin said that they would examine the man themselves. Mr. Hartford replied, “If you do, you must do it on your own responsibility—I am here on behalf of the Crown.” The defendant then called John Roche, but did not ask him any questions. The Magistrates began to ask Roche questions who merely testified that the defendant told him to tell his cousin, Michael Roche, not to take the land.

At this point from the newspaper account the magistrates appear to have lost patience with the defendant. He had a list of witnesses, but then stated he had no questions for them. The defendant was asked, “Who is John Fitzgerald?” The defendant replied, “He is the man I worked with for the last two years; he is the only man I worked with since I left the farm.”

Mr. Cody then testified, “This man is now in my employment, and I never heard anything against him.” When asked if the defendant drank much, Cody replied that he did not. However, when he did drink “he does not be very steady.” The Magistrates then began to quiz Cody on whether he wanted the land in question. Cody replied that he did not; he had enough land of his own.

The Magistrates

Prior to 1898 defendants could not testify on their own behalf. In this case the Magistrates asked the defendant if he had every been convicted. Thus, while not considered competent to testify concerning what occurred the defendant was considered competent to incriminate himself. The defendant responded, “It was for being drunk; drink is my failing; I was convicted of being drunk 11 years ago.”

Magistrate Bodkin: “You are accused of a very serious offence, which has been very clearly proved against you. The constable says you were not so drunk as not to know what you were about. However, he has taken upon himself to give you a good character so long as he has known you. That has had an influence on our mind, and, therefore, we will let you off with two months’ imprisonment at hard labour.”

Some of our readers might recall that Magistrate Bodkin was present at the Ballyfacey Eviction Riots of August 1885 and was told by Fr. Neary that his wife would be going to bed a widow if he persisted. For our article concerning the Ballyfacey Evictions click here.   

Unfortunately, without first names or townlands it is difficult to determine who was the employer, Mr. Cody. Even with first names it is difficult to identify the persons in the newspaper account of the intimidation trial with common names like Walsh and Roche and without townlands or ages. If anyone can provide further information concerning any of these local men please post below or email glenmore.history@gmail.com.

[Update: Ann FItzgerald was able to identify the two Walsh brothers. John Walsh (1835) and Patrick Walsh (1837) were born in Rathpatrick, Slieverue to Nicholas Walsh and Judith Magrath. We were able to locate baptismal records for other children including: Jeremiah Walsh (1833); James Walsh (1840); William Walsh (1843) and Anne Walsh (1847). Patrick Walsh (1837) never married. John Walsh (1835) married Margaret Fitzgerald, of Aylwardstown, on 16 Feb. 1870. Margaret was the daughter of Richard FItzgerald. Two of John & Margaret’s sons emigrated to New York and married two Hanrahan sisters from Glenmore Village.]

Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh