Crimes
now browsing by category
James Butler (1862-1933) Native of Flemingstown, Glenmore
Danny Dowling (1927-2023) was the Glenmore Village and Parish historian for 7 decades. His files are full of queries he answered from around the world helping people to connect with their Glenmore ancestors long before there were computers and other research conveniences. Danny often lamented that none die so well as the poor. What he meant was that little is left behind after they left this life such as land records, headstones, Wills or obituaries. Generally, only baptismal, marriage and death records may survive. However, every now and then a newspaper article or two provides information about a person. Today, we are going to present three short articles involving James Butler (1862-1933) who was a native of Flemingstown, Glenmore.
Horseshoeing Argument Leads to Criminal Charges
The New Ross Standard on 22 August 1896 in a column named “Notes From Beyond the Barrow: A Pistol Presented” provides a short description of two men who argued about horse shoeing.
“An ex-army man named Butler, a native of Glenmore, and lately living in Brownstown, Tullogher, was arrested by the Rosbercon police on Saturday on a charge of presenting arms at Thomas Leigh. On the previous day Butler had been around Rosbercon and on his way home in the evening met with Leigh, who is a smith. The conversation seems to have turned on horse shoeing, and they both became excited. Butler contended that the smith knew nothing about horseshoeing, and that if he wanted to know anything in that direction he should join the army. Leigh alleged that at this point Butler presented a pistol at him. He hastily retreated to Rosbercon and reported the matter to the police. The police found on Butler’s person a breach loading American pistol and four rounds of ammunition. He was remanded for trial to petty sessions” (New Ross Standard, Sat. 22 Aug. 1896, p. 4).
This event led to two different criminal charges against James Butler. The first charge was reported in the New Ross Standard of Saturday, 19 September 1896 (p. 4). The second charge of not having a license for the pistol was reported in the 17 October 1896 edition (p. 4).
The Charge of Presenting a Pistol
“The Queen at the prosecution of District Inspector Rainsford, and a native of near New Ross at Tinnakilly, near Rosbercon, on the 14th August, unlawfully presented a pistol at Thomas Leigh, Rosbercon, with intent to do him serious bodily injury. Mr. Colfer appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Rainsford said that the case was not so serious as at first sight might appear. He read the information of Thomas Leigh, Rosbercon, who was sworn, and who affirmed it, stating that at Tinnakilly, on the 14th August, he (Thomas Leigh) met defendant, James Butler. Deponent was a blacksmith, living in Rosbercon, and on that day had been brining a horse which had been shod, up to Thomas Shea. James Butler began to ridicule deponent and his father as to the way in which they did their business, and said they knew nothing about shoeing except driving nails. Deponent offered to bet £5 that Butler would not get a man who would shoe as well as his father, and Butler replied that if he wanted to know anything about horseshoeing he should enlist in the army. Deponent denied this, and thereupon defendant asked him did he mean to insult him, and pulling a pistol out of his pocket, presented it at his (witness’s) head. Deponent was a little afraid of Butler, and said he did not wish to have any argument with him. Deponent (sic) [should read Defendant] then put back the pistol and offered to shake hands with him. Witness shook hands with him and then left. The defendant had drink taken, but was not drunk. Deponent at first thought the defendant was a man named Ribby, but afterward found he did not know his name. When he reached Rosbercon he reported the matter to the police, and on the following day identified the prisoner.
Cross examined by Mr. Colfer—You did not know this man before? No. And he had no previous quarrel with you or anything of the kind? No. You say you were a little afraid of him? Yes. Did you think he intended firing it at you with intent to do bodily harm? He looked like it, but did not pull the trigger. Nor did he threatened to do so? No.
The District Inspector here produced the pistol, which with ammunition, was found on the prisoner after his arrest. Constable Kiggins gave evidence of having arrested the defendant, and found the pistol and four rounds of ammunition in his pockets. The Inspector said that that was his case.
Mr. Colfer said that in appearing for the defendant it seemed to him that there was no evidence that he meant to inflict serious bodily harm. No doubt he was instructed to plead guilty on behalf of his client to presenting the pistol, but there was not the slightest evidence that Butler meant to discharge it, if there was anything to discharge in it. Having reviewed the deposition, Mr. Colfer said it was clear there was no wrong inflicted. Leigh had not the remotest idea as to whom the defendant was. Nothing came of the arguments or bets between them, and when the defendant put up the pistol, he, in the half-inaudible way in which usually drunken men speak, asked the other to shake hands.
Defendant had been employed in the county Wexford for some time, and was now acting as caretaker in the county Waterford with a man named Mullins. When in the County Wexford, the defendant was made a present of the pistol, and when during the last month he was up seeing some friends in County Kilkenny he brought the pistol with him. Being in the army, he did not think it was necessary to have a license for it.
Chairman—That’s another matter. Mr. Colfer—Yes, quite so. Sufficient for the day—at all events he had this pistol with him. He did not know the law. He instructs me to say he was 12 years in the army, and was a non-commissioned officer when leaving. He was all through the Egyptian War, and he says he received a clasp for his action at Tel-el-Kibar, and also possesses the Kheldives brass medal for heroism (laughter). Of course this can only go for his character. Mr. Colfer then read a character for the defendant from Mr. P.J. Roche, Woodville, with whom he had worked for 13 months.
Mr. Rainsford said he wished to have the case dealt with as an ordinary assault. Of course were the case brought under the Peace Preservation Act there should be a court of two resident magistrates to hear it. The Chairman said the defendant would be fined a guinea [21shillings or 1£ 1s] or a month in jail, and he requested Mr. Rainsford to recommend to the Excise to have defendant prosecuted of carrying a pistol without a license (New Ross Standard, Sat. 19 Sept. 1896, p. 4).
Peace Preservation Act 1881
Sir Robert Peel in 1814 drafted the first Peace Preservation Act which established what would become the Irish Constabulary. In 1870 and 1888 during periods of agrarian agitation and the Land Wars, these Acts allowed the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the power to suspend habeas corpus, declare specific areas or districts “proclaimed districts” where a person could not carry or possess any arms or ammunition without a licence. The defendant, James Butler was charged and tried before a special court under the 1881 Act.
Ironically, while James Butler was serving in the British Army putting down a nationalist uprising in Egypt, back in Ireland legislation was introduced to proclaim his home barony Ida a “proclaimed district” allowing for the suspension of habeas corpus etc.
“Subsequent to the court of petty sessions, Messrs Ulick Bourke, RM [resident magistrate] (chairman), and H.F. Considine, RM, sat as a court under the Peace Preservation Act, to dispose of the case of the Queen, at the prosecution District-inspector Ross C. Rainsford, against James Butler, an ex-army man, for having in his possession on the 15th of August, without license, a pistol and four rounds of ball ammunition.
Constable Kiggins deposed that on the 15th August he arrested James Butler for presenting a revolver at one Thomas Leigh on the previous day. The defendant made no statement. Witness brought him to the barrack and searched him, and found on his person a pistol and four rounds of ball ammunition (produced). The defendant held no license. The offence occurred in the barony of Ida, and witness was aware that Ida was a proclaimed district.
Chairman (to defendant)—Do you plead guilty? I do sir. I leave myself at your worship’s mercy. I have been away since I was a boy, and was most of that time in active service. I was used to arms, and did not know there was any necessity to have a license. When the constable asked me had I had it, I told him I had. [Appears to be referring to the pistol.]
Mr. Considine—How long are you back from the army? Three or four years. I had a good character. The district inspector on last court day prosecuted the defendant for presenting the pistol which was an American one, at Thomas Leigh.
Defendant—I thought no more about it then if it was a toy pistol. District Inspector—I would not like to get a pistol like that presented to me if it were loaded. All I have to do now is to hand in the Dublin Gazette of 1881, in which year the Peace Preservation Act was enforced within the Barony of Ida. The Gazette was then produced.
In consideration of the costs in the case, the fines and costs in the previous prosecution on last court day, and the good character of the defendant, he was allowed off with a fine of 5s, the pistol and ammunition to be forfeited (New Ross Standard, Sat. 17 Oct. 1896, p. 4).
The Defendant James Butler (1862-1933) Native of Flemingstown, Glenmore
James Butler was born on 26 July 1862 at Flemingstown, Glenmore to Thomas Butler (c. 1803-1888) and his wife Margaret Kneefe/Keefe.
Military Service
We were able to find the list of medals awarded to James Butler from 1881-1883 for the Egypt & India Campaigns. Corp. James Butler, Reg. No 2466, 2nd Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, was awarded the Egyptian Medal 1882 with a Tel-el-Kebir Clasp; and was also awarded an Egyptian Bronze Star (Medal Rolls, British War Office, file WO-100/57).
Marriage
James Butler of Flemingstown married 18 May 1893 a widow named Ellen Norris (c. 1859-1937) a native of Ballyvaria (sic) Glenmore. James was the son of Thomas Butler (mason and farmer). Ellen was the daughter of Michael Norris (labourer).
Ellen Norris’s first husband was Patrick Murphy (c. 1848-1892). The couple were married on 6 February 1879 at Rosbercon. Patrick Murphy (38) and Ellen Norris (20) were both recorded as residing in Brownsford, [Tullogher]. Their fathers were recorded as Sylvester Murphy (deceased) and Michael Norris. Her husband Patrick Murphy died 2 December 1892.
It appears that Ellen only had one child in her first marriage, Michael Murphy (c. 1888-1966). Michael Murphy emigrated to Peoria, Illinois in about 1909, became a police officer, married and raised a family.
Family Life
James Butler was only married for a few years when he was arrested and tried in 1896. The 1901 Census provides that the family was residing in New Ross. James (39) was working as a labourer. In addition to his step-son Michael Murphy (c. 1888-1966) there were four other children in the household: Tom Butler (6); Ellen Butler (5); Nicholas Butler (3) and Maggie Butler (9 mos.).
Before the 1911 Rosbercon Census Michael Murphy had emigrated. James Butler (49) was working as a farm labourer. His wife Ellen was 53 years of age. Tom (17) was working as a Brewer’s labourer. Nicholas (13), Margaret (10) and the last of the children Mary was 7.
In the 1926 Census of Raheen, Co. Kilkenny, James Butler was 63 and reported that he was born at Flemingstown, Glenmore. He was employed as a farm labourer for Patrick Dooley (farmer) who had 130 acres. Ellen Butler reported her age as 67 and that she was born at Ballyveria, Glenmore. Their daughter Margaret Butler was 25, was born at New Ross and was self-employed as a dressmaker. Mary Butler was 23, born at Raheen, and was employed as a shop assistant at O’Leary and Butler Grocery and General Store.
Deaths
James Butler died 19 November 1933 of bronchial pneumonia at his home in Raheen. His daughter Margaret was present at his death. His widow, Ellen Butler née Norris died 7 March 1937 at home in Raheen of apoplexy. Apoplexy is an old medical term for a stroke. Her son Nicholas was present at her death.
The Victim Thomas Leigh/Lee (1875-1955)
All we gleaned from the newspapers accounts was that Thomas Lee was a blacksmith and his father was a blacksmith. The 1901 Rosbercon Census provides that James Lee (46) was a blacksmith and his sons Thomas Lee (21) and James Lee (20) were also blacksmiths.
A New Ross baptismal record reveals that Thomas Lee was born on 24 March 1875. His parents were James Lee and Ann Hanlon. Thus, Thomas Lee was 26 in 1901 and 21 in 1896 when he argued with James Butler regarding horseshoeing.
Thomas Lee and Gertrude Mary Begely were married on 4 October 1904 at St. Mary Priory, Highland St., Liverpool. They were parents of Rev. Brother J. A. Lee, Superior, Colaiste Muire, Dublin. The celebration of their Golden Wedding Anniversary was published in the New Ross Standard (Fri. 1 Oct. 1954, p. 1). The 1911 Census reveals that Gertrude was born at Pembroke Docks in South Wales. In 1911, Thomas Lee stood for the New Ross Board of Guardians (Rosbercon Ward) (New Ross Standard, Fri. 5 May 1911, p. 2). In addition to their son the couple also had several daughters.
Thomas Lee died 1 May 1955 at Sugarhouse Lane, New Ross aged 80. In his obituary it was noted that he was a man of splendid physique and despite his eighty years, he worked with the vigour and skill of a man half his age (New Ross Standard, Fri. 6 May 1955, p. 8). His wife Gertrude died of influenza on the 8th of October 1959 at the age of 80 at their home on the Quay, New Ross. Her daughter Maura Lee was present at her death.
*************************
Please send any corrections, additional information or photos to glenmore.history@gmail.com
The featured photo above is from the Royal Collection Trust, included in Queen Victoria’s Album, Afghanistan and Egypt Portraits, 1879 & 1882. For another photo of members of the Second Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment in Egypt press here.
For other Glenmore Butler families see our B surname page.
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
From Danny’s Files: A Glenmore Bigamy Case
In the voluminous files of Glenmore Historian Danny Dowling (1927-2021) a small newspaper clipping was found regarding an 1866 Glenmore bigamy case. In attempting to find further information in the contemporary newspapers it was shocking the number of bigamy cases that were reported in Irish newspapers in the 1860’s. Perhaps the most famous of all was the cases involved the Honourable William Charles Yelverton (1824-1883) later to become the 4th Viscount Avonmore.
We shall briefly outline this famous case because it caused the law in Ireland to change, and it provides context for some of the questions asked in the Glenmore bigamy case. Most of the following information regarding the Yelverton bigamy case came from an article by Rebecca Gill (citation below).
Thelwall v. Yelverton
William Charles Yelverton (1824-1883) was a major in the British Army and met Maria Theresa Longworth (c. 1832-1881) in 1852 on a steamer between France and London. Theresa, as she was called, had completed her education at a French Convent and was returning home to England after visiting her married sister in France. Her father was a wealthy Manchester silk manufacturer. Yelverton and Theresa corresponded and according to Theresa exchanged vows in Scotland. Subsequently, while visiting Rostrevor, County Down they were married by a Catholic priest on 15 August 1857. Theresa was Catholic, but Yelverton was a Protestant.
Yelverton and Theresa lived together in France until April 1858 when Yelverton was recalled to the Army. He left Theresa pregnant in France. There are conflicting reports, but apparently the child did not survive. On 26 June 1858, Yelverton publicly married a widow, Mrs. Emily Marianne Forbes née Ashworth, in Holy Trinity Chapel, of Edinburgh, Scotland. Emily was the widow of Professor Edward Forbes (1815-1854) the famous Isle of Man naturalist.
In September 1861, Theresa through a friend brought a case against Yelverton in Ireland, alleging that Yelverton was married to her. Yelverton responded that there was no ceremony in Scotland and that the Catholic ceremony in 1857 was merely a blessing to ease Theresa’s conscious. The three jurisdictions of England, Ireland and Scotland had different marriage laws. At that time a Catholic priest could not perform a mixed marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic or legally marry two Protestants (19 Geo. 2.c.13).
After a ten-day trial the jury in Ireland decided in favour of Theresa’s Scottish and Irish marriages. Eventually the case went to the Law Lords who ruled in Yelverton’s favour in July 1864. This case led to the enactment of the Marriage Causes and Marriage Law Amendment Act 1870 which made valid any marriages performed by a Catholic priest subject to the usual provisos of the civil law. The Civil registration of all marriages, births and deaths in Ireland became required after 1 January 1864 (An Act for the Registration of Births and Deaths in Ireland). (Rebecca Gill (2004) “The Imperial Anxieties of a Nineteenth Century Bigamy Case,” 57 History Workshop Journal 58-78: Oxford University Press).
(For further information and details on this famous case and photos see, Morvern French (2018) “The Curious Case of Longworth v. Yelverton” Historic Environment Scotland; Albert Nicholson, “Maria Theresa Longworth (c. 1832-1881),” 34 Dictionary of National Biography, para. 126 and Edward Irving Carlyle, “William Charles Yelverton (1824-1883)” 63 Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, para. 318
The Glenmore Bigamy Case
The Kilkenny Moderator (Wed. 17 January 1866, p. 3) reported that in the Rosbercon Petty Sessions under Resident Magistrate, J. Moore Esq., a considerable amount of time was spent investigating a charge of bigamy made against John Delahunty, alias Keating. The charge was brought by Constable Powell, of the Glenmore R.I.C. station. “It appeared that this man, passing by the name of Delahunty, had settled sometime since at Glenmore, and there contracted matrimony in the Roman Catholic Chapel, with a woman named Bridget Power.” [We believe that Constable Powell was William Powell (c. 1808-1880) who became the first Post master of Glenmore after he retired from the R.I.C., see our post of 24 November 2019.]
The constable reported that he received some information which led him to proceed to the Barony of Iverk and there made inquiries. He was led to ascertain that the same man, then calling himself “John” Keatings, had in the year 1861 in Owing chapel married Judtih Walsh. Soon thereafter “he forsook her” and left the locality. Unfortunately the constable did not divulge or the newspaper did not publish the information that set Constable Powell to investigate the defendant.
The Constable brought forward the two wives, and the two Roman Catholic Clergymen who had officiated at the two marriages. The defendant was identified. Mr. Moore took the information of the witnesses, and committed the defendant to the county gaol to be tried for bigamy at the ensuing county Assizes. “The other business before the court was of an ordinary character.”
Notwithstanding that bigamy was not considered an ordinary criminal case very little detail was revealed in court or at least not in the newspaper accounts regarding the defendant or his two wives.
The Trial of the Glenmore Bigamist
In the Kilkenny Crown Court on Tuesday, 13 March 1866, the bigamy trial against Michael/John Keating alias Delahunty, was held. The Kilkenny Moderator (Kilkenny Moderator, Wed. 14 March 1866, p. 2) reported on the trial the following day in one paragraph. Thankfully the Kilkenny Journal (Wed. 14 March 1866, p. 2) published a much longer and detailed account of the trial. This longer account was also published later in the Waterford Citizen (Fri. 16 March 1866, p. 3).
Baron Deasy, and a petty jury, tried Michael Keating alias John Delahunty for bigamy. The defendant had been “indicted for that he, having on the 10th of June 1860, married Judith Walsh during her lifetime he again remarried with Bridget Power. The prisoner, who was undefended, traversed.” (Traversed is an old legal term meaning that the defendant was disputing the facts.) The Crown was represented by Mr. Wall, Q.C.
The Rev. Matthew Brennan, P.P., Tulleroan, examined by Mr. Wall Q.C. testified that in 1860 he was curate of the parish of Ooning (sic). He produced the Owning Parish Register which contained an entry of the marriage of Michael Keating and Judith Walsh on 10 June 1860. The entry was in his handwriting, but he told the court that he could not identify the prisoner as the Michael Keating he married in 1860.
John Finnean, testified that on 10 June 1860, he was a witness to the marriage of the defendant to Judith Walsh, by Fr. Brennan. Judith Walsh he stated was still alive.
The Rev. John Delahunty, C.C. of Rosbercon, and formerly of Glenmore, produced a private book which contained a list of marriages he performed in Glenmore Chapel. It contained an entry for the marriage of John Delahunty to Bridget Power, on 1 July 1861. Fr. Delahunty could not identify the defendant as John Delahunty who he had married in 1861..
Patrick Henneberry testified that he was present when the defendant, calling himself John Delahunty was married by Fr. Delahunty on 1 July 1861 to Bridget Power.
Catherine Rourke, also testified that she had been a witness to the second marriage and observed the parties subsequently living together as man and wife.
Bridget Power, the second wife, testified as to the marriage in Glenmore, and having lived with the defendant as his wife. She testified that they had no children and they were both Roman Catholics. She stated that she never knew of the defendant being of any other religion.
The defendant in his attempt at a defence made a “rambling statement to the effect that he was declined to be married to the last witness, and told the priest that he was a married man. However, as they persisted in telling him that he might get married, he thought it was no harm to do so.”
The jury “without hesitation” found the defendant guilty of bigamy, and he was sentenced to penal servitude for five years (Kilkenny Journal, Wed. 14 March 1866, p. 2).
Sent to Mountjoy
Four convicts were transferred from the Kilkenny County gaol on Monday the 26th of March to Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, including: “Michael Delahunty, alias John Keatings convicted at the recent Assizes of bigamy (Kilkenny Moderator, Wed. 28 March 1866, p. 3).
The Two Marriages
Without a date or place of birth it is impossible to determine much about the defendant. However, we were able to ascertain some facts concerning his known two marriages.
Marriage 1
According to the Parish Register on 10 June 1860 at Templorum, Co. Kilkenny, Michael Keating married Judith Walsh of Curramore. Witnesses to the marriage were John Finacane and Mary Conolly. Then on 20 September 1860 Anastatia Keatine (sic) was baptized at Dunnamaggin to “John Keatinge” and his wife Judith Walsh. Godparents were listed as James Murphy and Catherine Donovan. The address provided was Kiloganny. Thus in the space of 3 months Michael became John, and Judtih Keating née Walsh moved from Curramore north to Kiloganny. The child is not mentioned in the newspaper accounts of the trial. It is likely the child was not alive in 1866 or for whatever reason the birth of the child was concealed from the investigating constable.
Marriage 2
On 1 July 1861, at Glenmore, John Delahunty married Bridget Power. The only information provided in the Parish Register is the names of the witnesses: Patrick Henebary and Kate Rourk.
Thankfully, the surname Rourke or O’Rourke is not a common name in Glenmore. It is generally found in the townland of Weatherstown. Catherine Roork (sic) was baptized on 24 December 1846 at Glenmore, to Michael Roork and his wife, Bridget Bolger. Their address is simply listed as Glenmore. Godparents were James Bolger and Honor Mullins.
We then sought baptismal records for the more common name of Bridget Power looking for girls born about the same time as Catherine Rourke. Bridget Power, of Weatherstown, was baptized 7 February 1844, at Glenmore, to Thomas Power and his wife, Mary Walsh. Godparents were Patrick Fitzgerald and Nancy Fitzgerald. If this is the correct Bridget Power she was only 17 when she married in 1861 and was 22 when she learned her marriage was a sham.
Please send any corrections, additional information or photos to glenmore.history@gmail.com .
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
More Glenmore Photos: From the Eamonn Jones Collection
First, thanks to everyone who came today to the Family Tree workshop, to Mary for opening the hall, and especially to the gang from Glenmore Tidy Towns (Pat, Orla, Trish, Aoife and Noah) for helping. If anyone needs a hand trying to find a Glenmore ancestor we are only an email away. E. Doolan I found information for your grandmother this afternoon. (Email glenmore.history@gmail.com )
Today, we are going to share some more Glenmore photos from the Eamonn Jones Collection and some information. The photo below depicts Eamonn Jones’s uncle Kieran Jones (1909-1993). Kieran is holding the bridle of a small horse or pony pulling a farm cart. This photo was taken in Glenmore Village. The stone building was Dr. Mackesy’s stage house used for storing grain. It had a stage or a dock at the front door to make it easier for loading and unloading carts and wagons. The stage house stood next to the Village Stream bridge the pub was later built to the right of this building. The stage house was removed when the Sallies estate was built. For further information on the landlord Dr. Mackesy see our post of 3 March 2025.
It is not known who the little blond boy is in the photo, but it has been suggested that it may be Billy O’Keeffe of the Village. Kieran Jones (1909-1993) was born on 30 August 1909 at Glenmore to George Jones (1868-1945) and his wife Bridget Murphy (1870-1945). Kieran emigrated to the U.K. and married, and raised a family in Birmingham. Kieran died in 1993.
Kieran Jones and Jim B.’s Adventure
It is not known exactly when Kieran emigrated, but we did locate a newspaper article that indicates he was still living in Glenmore Village in May of 1943. The New Ross Standard (Fri. 14 May 1943, p. 5) published a short article about Kieran Jones and James Walsh, Jr. (1918-1988) (better known as Jim B.) being charged with criminal damage to Mr. Henry Bevan’s (c. 1890-1966) windows. Henry Bevans was a National Teacher who resided in the teacher’s house (across from the Glenmore Community Hall).
On Sunday the 18th of April, Mr. and Mrs. Bevans were in their dining room when they heard a noise on their roof. Then they heard a crash. When they went out into the hall a glass panel was broken as was a window in their sitting room. Henry Beven’s stated that he spent £1 replacing the broken windows. While being cross-examined by the defence solicitor, Mr. J.D. Coughlan, Henry Bevans stated that he had known both defendants since they were young boys and “they had no reason for this.”
Sergeant Dalton, of the Glenmore Barracks, investigated and stated that Jim B. stated that they were cycling home and threw some stones at the roof of the house. Mr. Coughlan said that the defendants had not acted with malice. He noted that they had never had anything against them, and he had a number of letters from businessmen and farming giving both defendant’s good character references.
Notwithstanding the reported loss of £1, the Justice bound the defendants over for twelve months on their own bonds of £20 each and sureties of £20 each or in default two months imprisonment. They were ordered to pay the £1 damage and 5s each in court costs.
Glenmore had no pub until the 1960’s, and it is surmised that Kieran and Jim B. were away for refreshments on a Sunday evening and on cycling back to Glenmore they decided to throw stones onto the Bevan’s roof. Perhaps their motivation was to obtain the attention of the two Bevan daughters? Unfortunately, their aim was off, perhaps due to their refreshments, and they broke two windows. For further information on Jim B. see our post of 12 Oct. 2025.
Life in Birmingham
The first record that could be located for Kieran in Birmingham was his marriage in the autumn of 1945 to Hanora Donovan. Over the years the couple lived at various address in Birmingham including: (1947) 22 Great Brook St.; (1954) 157 Great Lister St. and (1962) 67 Rupert St.
One interesting newspaper article highlighted one of Kieran’s interests. “A folk duo called Avoca did gigs around Manchester. Avoca was comprised of a Dubliner named Larry O’Loughlin, who lived at Nechells and was studying at Bournemouth, and Kieran Jones, who was from Kilkenny” (Birmingham Mail, Sat. 10 July 1971 p. 8).
Trip Home to Glenmore
In 1990 Kieran came home to Glenmore for a visit. “SHORT HOLIDAY—Mr. Kieran Jones, who emigrated to England about 50 years ago, spent a few days holidays with his nephews last week”(Kilkenny People, Fri. 4 May 1990, p. 17).
Frank Keogh of Birmingham
The photo to the left was taken in Birmingham of Mr. & Mrs. Frank Keogh of 93 Aston Brook St., Birmingham. Their names and address are written on the back of the photo. The baby appears to be in a baptismal gown.
Slieverue Glenmore Camogie Team
We have only been able to identify a few people in the photo. We believe the photo is from the early 1950’s. The second person from the left in the front row is Alice Walsh née Walsh a native of Rochestown, Glenmore but after her marriage she lived in Scartnamore, Glenmore.
Top row, fourth from the left, Alice Hartley, of Kilmurry, Slieverue. When Noeleen Fogarty had her shop in Hanrahan’s Alice Hartley sold her eggs in the shop.
Lady standing to the far left we believe is Eily Doolan of Ballyverneen?
If you can identify any of these ladies would you please comment below or send the information by email to glenmore.history@gmail.com .
Please send any corrections, further information, or photos to glenmore.history@gmail.com .
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
From Danny’s Files: 19th Century Abuse of Sons
Unfortunately, our home internet failed six days ago as I was researching the cases below. (Yes, we are finally dumping Eir for what we hope is a more reliable service.) In any event, over the 70 years that our founder Danny Dowling (1927-2021) collected information on Glenmore he often copied non-Glenmore newspaper specific articles that caught his attention. The two articles below were in a file Danny marked “family relations.”
Corporal punishment was a fact of life in the 19th century. Corporal punishment was practiced in public institutions such as prisons, schools, the workplace as well as in the home. The chastisement of wives has been widely discussed such as the “rule of thumb.” Husbands were allowed to “chastise” their wives with implements that did not exceed the circumference of the husband’s thumb. Men were allowed to physically chastise their children, and it was common for daughters to be locked into rooms until such time as they agreed to marry a suitor chosen by their father. However, once a son or daughter married they were emancipated and the father’s duty to chastise ceased. The married daughter now was subject to “chastisement” from her husband. The emancipated son was a man in his own right and was no longer subject to corporal punishment by his father.
The cases below provide a glimpse into 19th century family relationships. These cases were considered controversial at their respective times. Undoubtedly, these sensational cases were discussed across the country including in Glenmore.
Spencer v. Spenser & Spencer
In 1828, the Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier (Thur. 21 Feb. 1828) published an article entitled “Extraordinary Case.” John Spencer, a married man, charged his father Benjamin Spencer, and his step-mother, Catherine Spencer with imprisoning him in their home for three weeks and mal-treating him. Unfortunately, none of the ages of the parties was provided. John Spenser alleged that he was “manacled, fettered and chained down to a bed frame in a garret room without fire or bedding and with little more nutriment than potatoes and water…” He was “stripped of his small clothes, waist-coat, shoes and stockings—and received occasional floggings…”
The Witnesses
John Spenser’s wife stated that the day before the hearing she had taken her husband to Edward Butler, Esq. to show Mr. Butler the condition of her husband. Her husband had a manacle on each hand that were connected by a short chain. There were horse-locks on each ancle and a hook was on one of the horse-locks. A chain ran between the short wrist chain to the hook which kept her husband from standing up straight. She removed the chain from the hook. His hair “was cut closely off.” Although she knew that her husband was in his father’s house she did “venture to go and see him, for fear of ill-treatment to herself.” She learned of her husband’s condition from “old Spencer’s maid, Anne Condran.”
Mr. Edward Butler, Esq. stated that John Spencer “came to him yesterday morning, without any small-clothes, or stockings—that he wore a kind of woollen apron which descended to his knees—that he had all the irons described about him.” Mr. Butler went to the father’s house. The keys to the irons were provided. The irons on John Spencer were then removed and his vest and small clothes were returned to him. John Spencer was at liberty.
Ann Condran stated that she was a servant maid to Benjamin Spencer for the past three months. She saw Benjamin’s son John in a room above stairs—he had bolts his hands and feet, and was chained—he was tied to the bed with other chains. She stated that she thought that John Spenser was mischievous. He once broke a pane of glass in the parlour with his hand. While he was confined, she brought him potatoes and milk, sometimes stirabout, another time meat, and sometimes dry potatoes. She could not state who chained him but she knew his step-mother cut his hair to clean him. She repeatedly stated that the neighbours knew of his confinement perhaps to show that his parents did not think they were doing anything wrong, or perhaps to relieve any guilt she may have had for not informing John Spencer’s wife earlier regarding his mal-treatment.
According to Ann Condran John Spencer got loose himself and escaped from the window. She stated that without the restraints he would have beat and bruised everyone in the household, “and had ill used his father and mother. She noted that he was chained to a bed that had a mattress but no covering on it. John Spencer was forced to eat with his handcuffs on for the entire three weeks. One time when his mother went to clean him John Spencer allegedly threw a hammer at her which was an extraordinary statement given his irons. Unfortunately, it was not reported how he obtained the hammer.
Mr. M’Dowell, governor of the gaol, testified that it is not usual in the gaol to keep the criminals hand-cuffed for three weeks. He stated that such a punishment was greater than what he used. M‘Donnell said that when young Spencer escaped from his father’s home, his head and legs bore marks of violence. He had five plasters on his wounds, and his hair was cut close off.
John Spencer, was sworn and testified that he was confined against his will in his father’s home. He was told not to expect to escape until his father’s death. He described the irons that held him and stated that his mother beat him with lashes. His father did not strike him during the three weeks. For food, he only once got stirabout and milk and potatoes twice a day. He got meat once when his step-mother was absent from the home.
John Spencer stated that he was chained to the bed and could lie on it but it did not have a stitch of covering on it. He asked for covering and it was refused. Once a “lock of straw was left in the room, he took it to lie on, under the bed, and his step-mother then took it away and used it in the shop under her feet.”
The Ruling
“Magistrates having investigated the case, consulted awhile. It was directed that Benjamin Spencer and his wife should be confined for trial Assizes, or find bail for appearance, two persons each in and themselves in £100. each. The husband subsequently, on giving the bail required for himself, was dismissed—but Catherine Spencer, in default of security was sent to prison.” In other words, Benjamin Spencer and his wife were to stand trial when the circuit judge next came to the area and could either await the judge in jail or pay £100 each as bail. Benjamin Spencer, the father, made bail for himself, but his wife was sent to prison to await the trial.
“A Melancholy Domestic Affair in Cashel,” O’Ryan v. O’Ryan
In 1847, during the Great Famine, a “family squabble” in Cashel appeared in newspapers across Ireland and in England. The victim Francis O’Ryan, Jr. was next of kin to the Right Hon. Richard Butler, Earl of Glengall, of the barony of Cahir (Liverpool Daily Post, 1 Sept 1858). The son was shot in the face by his father, Francis O’Ryan, Sr. It was initially thought that the son would die. At the time of the shooting the son was a couple of months from reaching his majority.
The Cork Examiner (Fri. 3 Sept. 1847) after noting that various versions “of the fearful affair in Cashel” appeared in various newspapers “after much deliberation” decided to publish an editorial written by the father from his prison cell to the Tipperary Vindicator. The Cork Examiner went to pains to state that it was “offering no opinion of our own, one way or the other, on this most unfortunate matter.”
Statement of Francis O’Ryan, Sr.
TO THE EDITOR THE TIPPERARY VINDICATOR. Cashel, August 29, 1847- Sir–I beg to set you right relative to a statement of an occurrence that took place in Cashel, and was mentioned your paper of the 28th inst. It is not true that I had any argument or difference with my son in consequence of his refusing to join in making leases or lease. No such circumstance ever occurred. His signature or consent to any lease made or to be made by me is not requisite; neither will entitled any property from his coming of age, or in fact until after my death.
No, Sir, what led to the unfortunate occurrence was the infliction of the greatest wrong one person could do another. I am sorry be obliged to allude to it, but the letter in your paper of yesterday leaves me no alternative. I caught my son in bed with my wife—his step-mother. This, Sir, was what led to the unfortunate affair, and not the foolish and malicious statement furnished in your paper. I am ignorant as to who the writer of the article may be, or his intentions in furnishing you with a statement so totally at variance with truth; but his information is evidently derived from the poisoned source of malicious fool well known here.
I beg also to state, that am not, nor never was, in the habit of carrying fire arms about me; neither am I, or was I, in dread of thieves. I fear more the villain who attacks character through the instrumentality of wanton and malicious lies. His remarks about my mental illness etc., are not worth answering. Requesting a place in your paper for this note, I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Francis O’Ryan.
Readers may wonder why the father would make such a statement to a newspaper. During the 19th century defendants could not testify in their own defence. By getting his version of events out into the public the father hoped to influence potential jurors. If the son had died the father would have faced murder charges, and if convicted he would have hanged. By making this public statement the father was putting forth a provocation defence which if successful would have reduced a conviction to manslaughter. Luckily, for him his son did not die.
Statement of Francis O’Ryan, Jr.
After the ball was removed from Francis O’Ryan Jr.’s head he too wrote a letter to the editor disputing what his father said occurred before the shooting.
The Tipperary Vindicator (Wed. 15 Sept. I847) published the following letter to the editor dated 9 September 1847.
Sir—Now that my medical advisers say I may use so much exertion, after life being despaired of, I hasten to reply to letter my unfortunate father, dated 29th August last (which I am much surprised you inserted in your columns), containing most diabolical charge against me-a charge deeply affecting my character, and impeaching the reputation and fidelity of an innocent woman.
More particularly when his letter was written in prison, where had been committed on a charge the most serious and aggravated, from which he would of necessity exonerate himself whether right or wrong. I totally and distinctly deny his statements; they are at utter variance with truth. I positively assert that I never did, in thought or deed, commit any act that could justify him in such cruel and un-parental violence as he has resorted to. On the night of the melancholy occurrence I repaired to bed about ten o’clock, labouring under intense agony from tooth-ache and swollen jaw, which I have been long time subject. About twelve o’clock Mrs. O’Ryan, her way to procure a drink for one of her children, having heard me complain, came into my room (which is quite near my father’s) and asked me if she would send for anything to allay the pain, when my father, armed with pistols, rushed into the room, drove Mrs. O Ryan out, left the room, and locked the door on the outside.
I got out of my room, and in some time after proceeded to the door of that in which he was, asked him for the key, and the reason for acting as he had done, when he deliberately fired a pistol at me, inflicting a most dangerous wound. His statement that he had no argument with relation to joining him in leases, also untrue, as he did ask me to a short time since, for the purpose of enabling him to raise money for his own purposes, which I refused. Ever since he has been most violent in his conduct and treatment towards me.
A statement which appeared in some papers written by a newly acquired friend of my father’s (who gave the Limerick folk reason to think of him), that he (my father) was recently married, and other insinuations reflecting on me, is equally false, as my father married nine years since, and has got two children by said marriage. I could adduce many and strange circumstances to convince the most incredulous of the motives which actuated him to commit this awful crime, but as the matter must undergo legal investigation at the proper time, I trust the Press in general will, in justice to me, insert this letter, as they have published that of my unfortunate parent, and refrain from publishing any further comments on this very deplorable subject. I am, your very obedient, Francis O’Ryan, Jun.
Junior was referencing some statements that appeared in various newspapers including the Sun (London) (Tues. 31 Aug. 1847). “Mr. O’Ryan having been for some time a widower, recently married a young and interesting lady, who, according to the version of the story on the father’s side, become an object of the son’s passion. That this sentiment was reciprocated by the youth’s stepmother, the father had, as is stated, for some short time back, more and more reason to be suspicious; and on Tuesday evening on entering his bedroom was horrified to beheld his place occupied by his unfortunate son. Maddened with rage, the unhappy father reached a loaded pistol, and fired… The lady made a precipitate retreat, and escaped before her infuriated husband could reload his weapon. An instant alarm was given and Mr. Ryan was taken into custody, and consigned to the gaol at Cashel.”
Before the internet crashed, we were able to learn that Junior went to Australia and returned to Ireland in 1858 to claim a title. At that time it was noted that his father was deceased (Liverpool Daily Post, 1 Sept. 1858). As time permits and the internet is restored we shall update these cases.
Please send any corrections or additional information to glenmore.history@gmail.com and we shall acknowledge and reply as quickly as we are able.
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
Special thanks to Nial and Maeve C. for allowing us to “borrow” their internet to post this.
From Danny’s Files: The Rest of the Story of the Murder on Glenmore Hill
In one of his many notebooks, Danny Dowling (1927-2021) recorded contemporary newspaper accounts regarding the executions of three local men for murder in 1834. Patrick Meany, a native of Glenmore, had moved to Rosbercon and was convicted and executed for conspiring to kill his landlord Joseph Anthony Leonard, Esq. Please see our post of 9 February 2020 for the shocking details of how the murder was perpetrated and details of Philip Malone’s trial. Perhaps the biggest surprise Danny discovered and recorded in his notebook concerned Meany’s corpse after his execution. The place of the murder, and two of the executions arising from it, took place at the site of the murder just about a mile east of the N 25 Glenmore roundabout.
Danny found and recorded the following articles from the Waterford Mail newspaper.
Robert Malone (?-1834)
On Saturday the 26th of July 1834 at the Kilkenny County Assizes Robert Malone was convicted of the murder of Joseph Anthony Leonard, Esq. Robert Malone was sentenced to be hanged. The newspaper article noted, “It will be recollected that last Assizes his brother, Philip Malone, suffered for the same murder” (Waterford Mail, Mon. 28 July 1834).
After being found guilty and sentenced when Robert Malone was being taken from the court to the gaol “he exhibited great and disgusting levity. His execution took place in front of the gaol. Among the very great assemblage that witnessed his ignominious end, all seemed to think that he deserved his fate” (Waterford Mail, Wed. 30 July 1834.) [It is not clear why Robert Malone was executed outside the gaol in Kilkenny City after his brother Philip Malone was executed at the place of the murder on the Hill of Glenmore on the old mail coach road between Waterford and New Ross. Later Patrick Meany was also executed at the place of the murder.]
Patrick Meany (c. 1784-1834)
Patrick Meany was tried on Monday the 28th of July 1834 for conspiring to murder his landlord, Joseph Anthony Leonard, Esq. and inciting others to commit the murder. The jury was out for three hours and returned at 8 P.M. The jury returned a guilty verdict “The judge pronounced the culprit’s awful doom—to be hanged on Thursday.” The newspaper noted that Meany was the owner of the goods [cattle] Mr. Leonard had distrained (Waterford Mail, Wed. 30 July 1834).
The execution of Patrick Meany was set to take place on Tuesday the 12th of August at the scene of the murder (Waterford Mail, Sat. 2 Aug. 1834).
The Execution
“Another of the misguided persons concerned in the sanguinary murder of the late estimable Joseph Anthony Leonard, Esq. atoned for his share in the dreadful deed yesterday, at Shanbo (sic), the scene of the consummation, within three miles of New Ross, and 9 of this city. The malefactor upon this occasion was Patrick Meany…”
“An immense concourse of persons assembled yesterday to witness Meany’s ignominious departure from this world. A strong force of cavalry, infantry and police was also collected. The culprit—who seemed a man advanced at least to middle age—appeared to suffer very much from exhaustion, so much so that he was obliged to depute to his Reverend attendant the duty of addressing the immense multitude…”
“Although he expressed his contrition for having uttered denunciation against his prosecutor, he died without acknowledging the justice of the sentence or declaring his innocence. Soon afterwards the culprit was launched into eternity and the motely group of spectators separated. Five children we are informed, witnessed the execution of their guilty parent.”
Since the above was in type we received the following from a correspondent.
New Ross, August 12—Patrick Meany …was executed at the scene of the murder and where Philip Malone, one of the perpetrators of the murder, was executed on last St. Patrick’s Day. Meany was present at Philip Malone’s execution and also travelled to Kilkenny to attend the execution of Robert Malone during the last assizes.
“At half past eleven the cavalcade, consisting principally of the 9th Lancers, passed through New Ross. The unhappy individual who was the object of this mournful procession was seated in a chaise receiving religious consolation from his clergyman. He appeared to be fully sensible of his awful situation. If this could be a criterion to judge by he was fully resigned to meet his fate in a becoming and Christian like manner.”
At New Ross the 32nd Reserve and a large party of constabulary joined the cavalcade as did the Sheriff and Resident Magistrates. When they arrived at the fatal spot Meany descended from the chaise, accompanied by his Clergyman. He kneeled for some time in prayer at the foot of the gallows.
“The grim finisher of the law put the rope about his neck from behind. Meany turned suddenly round, and seemed to shrink from the trial he had to encounter. The Rev. Gentleman interposed his hand to shade his eyes. The man again looked agitated when his arms were being pinioned. When all was ready, he ascended the ladder with a firm step attended by the Rev. Gentleman, who first retired, and then returned again to strengthen the individual about to depart into eternity. He supported him by his back.”
“Meany now seemed weak, and the attentions of his spiritual adviser were continued to the last moment. His cap fell off, but it was quickly readjusted, and the fatal drop having been withdrawn, he died almost instantaneously.”
“Before ascending the gallows, the clergyman told the people that Meany felt sorry for having accused his prosecutor as he did in the Courthouse, that he willingly forgave all men and begged the prayers of all Christians” (Waterford Mail, Wed. 13 Aug. 1834).
The Wake & Burial of Patrick Meany
After having been suspended for some time, the body was taken away in an ass’s car by the family of the criminal, but it was afterwards removed to the Police Station at Rosbercon, to be conveyed back to Kilkenny (Waterford Mail, Wed. 13 Aug. 1834).
The body of Patrick Meany was waked on the night of his execution in the Rosbercon police barracks. His friends were admitted, and the body was interred the next day by the family, in the presence of the police (Waterford Mail, Mon. 18 Aug. 1834).
Generally, by the 19th century executions were public and carried out in front of gaols, and after 1868 executions were required to be held within the confines of the gaols. The corpse of an executed prisoner belonged to the State. Most were buried within the confines of the gaol in an unmarked grave in un-consecrated ground. From the time of Henry VIII authorities provided fresh executed prisoner corpses to doctors for training new doctors in anatomy. Due to religious and other beliefs families sought the bodies of their executed kin. The Meany family is the only family we have found so far that was allowed to wake and bury their father after his execution.
Thirteen years’ later convicted murderer Henry “Bounce” Walsh of Cat’s Rock, Glenmore asked the judge to give his body to his father and the request was refused. See our post of 16 August 2020 regarding the execution of Henry “Bounce” Walsh.
Please send any corrections or additional information to glenmore.history@gmail.com.
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
Trial for the Killing of Catherine Hanrahan (c. 1798-1822) of Rochestown,Glenmore
On 6 November 2022 we published newspaper accounts of the manslaughter of Catherine Hanrahan in July 1822 at her home in Rochestown, Glenmore. While transcribing another Danny Dowling (1927-2021) notebook we discovered that Danny recorded articles from the Waterford Mirror that outline the testimony presented during the murder trial. These newspaper accounts provide more detail including the testimony of the landlord Pierse Edward Forristal, Esq. and conflicting testimony of other witnesses. It appears that the testimony of Pierse Edward Forristal, Esq. influenced the jury that only considered the case for a few minutes before returning its manslaughter verdict.
The Arrest
Danny recorded the following from the Waterford Mirror (Sat. 20 Aug. 1822). Thomas Marks was charged with the murder of Catherine Hanrahan, at Rochesstown, in Co. Kilkenny. Thomas Marks was taken without resistance at a house in Kilmacthomas. Marks when arrested stated that he was on his way to surrender. He was transmitted to the County Kilkenny gaol.
The Waterford Mail on Wednesday the 14th of August 1822 provided an account of day three of the Kilkenny Assizes. In this account Thomas Marks was indicted for the murder of Catherine Hanrahan and the assault of Luke Power “by presenting a pistol at him.” Hereafter Marks is described as the prisoner.
The Testimony of Luke Power
Luke Power was sworn and testified. Unfortunately, the newspaper account does not provide his relationship, if any, to the deceased Catherine Hanrahan née Power, his occupation or residence. Later in defence testimony it appears that Luke and Thomas Power are brothers. Luke Power testified that he knows Rochestown and was there the Monday after the fair of Thomastown. He knows Thomas Power who lives at Rochestown. On that Monday, very early in the morning, he saw the prisoner at Rochestown.
Luke Power testified that the dog barked at the prisoner. Luke Power got up and asked who was there. The prisoner responded that he was distraining for Mr. Forristal. Luke Power testified that the prisoner was armed. Witness shut the door and would not let the prisoner in. Luke Power then went down to where the cows were and saw three bailiffs there, but the prisoner was not with them.
Luke Power heard a shot and returned to the house and saw Catherine Hanrahan “kilt” on the floor. She died six days after being shot. Luke Power went out to the road where some of the neighbours were gathered. The prisoner said “here’s the man was going to kill me,” and cocked his pistol at Luke Power. It was an hour before sunrise when the prisoner came with six men.
Cross-Examination of Luke Power
Luke Power testified that Mr. Forristal was his landlord. He stated that he paid some rent to Mr. Sherlock and owed Mr. Forristal one hundred pounds “or that way rent.” His brother was his partner in the land. He first saw the prisoner and his assistants in the yard, it was not then 3 o’clock.
Sherlock distrained Luke Power four weeks earlier, but he did not think there was a reason at that time. He did testify that a horse had been taken away to the bog at that time. The prisoner distrained Luke Power before for Mr. Forristal, but could not say how long before. At the time the shot was fired Luke Power was four or five fields away and had not walked a step with the prisoner that morning.
The Testimony of Alicia Power of Rochestown, Glenmore
Alicia Power testified that she was the daughter of Thomas Power and the sister of the deceased Catherine Hanrahan. She remembered people coming to her father’s on the first of July last before sunrise. She saw the prisoner there. She testified that her sister was driving pigs out of the bawn. The prisoner desired that her sister leave them there. When she refused Alicia Power testified that the prisoner ran over and caught her sister by the neck and “squeezed her.” Her neck was cut by his “iron hand.”
Alicia Power stated that she could hear “all that occurred” between the deceased and the prisoner. The prisoner said, “Come leave the pigs there.” Deceased answered, “How do you know who owns them?” Prisoner then struck the deceased and was choking her. Prisoner lifted his foot on a stone and saying, “by G-d I’ll shoot you,” and then fired his pistol. Deceased was then running away and was shot 6 yards from the prisoner. She fell at the door, the ball entered her back. There was another man there minding the pigs where the deceased left them.
Her sister was “shot on Monday morning and died the Sunday following.”
Cross Examination of Alicia Power of Rochestown, Glenmore
Alicia Powers was driving the pigs with her sister the deceased. “They had been in the cabin and were driving them out of the bawn.” Deceased had a stick in her hand. She usually brought a stick to drive the pigs. The deceased did not strike the prisoner and Alicia Power never saw a stone in the deceased’s hand. Alicia Power testified that she never saw the prisoner fall or see any stone thrown at him. She testified that the deceased could not have thrown a stone without her seeing it. Alicia Power was at the prisoner’s side when he fired.
Alicia Power said that the prisoner had only one pistol. She saw Luke Power come up. But never saw the prisoner “present a pistol at him.” Alicia Power swore information against prisoner before Mr. Snow. She did not swear against any other person except the prisoner. She did not hear the deceased, or any other person calling out, “kill the black protestant,” and firmly stated that she did not say it either.
Examined by the Bench—Alicia Power clarified to the judge that the prisoner had six or seven men in his party, one of whom was present when the shot was fired. Bridget Cashin was present but no boys or men. They were down on the land where the cows were.
The Testimony of Bridget Cashin
Bridget Cashin was present when Catherine Hanrahan was shot. She saw the prisoner that morning and saw him fire a shot at Catherine Hanrahan. The deceased was Bridget Cashin’s cousin. She observed the deceased driving the pigs out of the bawn. Only her sister was with the deceased. None of the men of the house were present. She testified that the prisoner had two men with him. She denied that the deceased struck the prisoner or threw stones at him. “He cursed G-d, he would fire at her in a minute.”
Bridget Cashin testified that the prisoner caught the deceased by her neck and choked her. The prisoner laid the pistol on his left knee and fired. The deceased walked four steps and fell. “She did not get up since.” Deceased was 24 years of age, was married 2.5 years, and had one child. Interestingly the Waterford newspaper did not acknowledge that the deceased was pregnant when she was shot in the back.
Cross Examination of Bridget Cashin
Bridget Cashin could not identify the two men with the prisoner. The house was distrained for Mr. Forristal’s rent, but she could not say whether the men were “keepers.” Deceased refused to leave the pigs and was driving them away. The deceased said she would drive them in spite of the prisoner. Bridget Cashin stated that she did not say anything, and the deceased did not say “kill the bloody or the black protestant.” She did not see Luke Power come up. She went to Mr. Snow’s and swore information about six days after “the business occurred.”
The Testimony of Dr. John Briscoe of Waterford
Dr. Briscoe testified that he attended Catherine Hanrahan at Rochestown on the second of July. She had received a gunshot wound in the lower part of the back “of which she afterwards died.”
Cross Examination of Dr. John Briscoe
The wound was horizontal in the lower part of the spine on the right side near the hip. The doctor did not see a mark of bruises or a cut on the deceased’s neck.
The Crown rested and the defence began.
The Testimony of William Cooney
William Cooney testified that he knew the prisoner and went with him to Rochestown on the first of July to distrain for Mr. Forristal. The distraining party consisted of: Thoman and John Marks; William and Richard Jeffers; —Lonergan and himself. They first went to the fields where they collected three horses and some cows. Three men were left in the field to guard the animals. Prisoner then brought Lonergan and William Cooney to the house and told them to take charge of all the property there both inside and outside. He testified that they never entered the house. The pigs were seized in the lane. Prisoner brought William Cooney down towards the fields and they met Luke Power and his brother Thomas.
Prisoner advised the Powers to get bail to release the cattle. Thomas Power had a wattle and struck at Lonergan. The blow was prevented by Luke Power. Prisoner went down to Mr. Forristal’s which was about a field away. Lonergan and Cooney were left in charge of the house. Whilst prisoner was away the two Powers and a woman (not the deceased) pushed Lonergan out of the yard. Lonergan left to tell the prisoner. Cooney was alone and went out onto the road.
Power’s two daughters and another girl were driving the pigs out of the bawn. Deceased had a wattle in her hand. When Lonergan returned one of the girls said, “Mr. Forristal knew nothing of the pigs and for God’s sake let them go.” Lonergan and Cooney refused and the deceased then said, “she would have them (the pigs) or she would knock one of their brains out sideways with the wattle.”
Cooney testified that the wattle was heavy and two and a half yards in length. Prisoner returned and upon hearing the deceased told her, “for God’s sake go in and be quiet and all will be well.” Cooney stated that deceased advanced toward prisoner and said, “you black protestant are you come again to rob us?” She made a blow of the wattle at him. She said the words in Irish. Prisoner gave the deceased a shove and said, “go in God’s name and don’t be aggravating me.”
The deceased raised the wattle and struck the prisoner two or three times. She called out for someone to come “knock the black protestant’s brains out.” The deceased then took up a stone according to Cooney and struck the prisoner in the knee. The other two women were running with stones in their hands. Cooney and Lonergan went between the women and the prisoner. Cooney saw and heard the shot fired. The deceased when shot was stooping for a stone.
The prisoner when he fired was down, “having dropped down sideways when hit on the knee with the stone.” The prisoner was not flat on the ground. He was supported by his elbow. A quarter of an hour later Luke Power came up. The prisoner only had one pistol and it was re-loaded. Luke Power was very angry and was according to Coney going to injure them if he could. Luke Power called the prisoner a “bloody rogue” and “all of them robbers.”
Cross Examination of William Cooney
Cooney was asked to repeat what the deceased had said in Irish and he did. No men of the Power family were present from the time the pigs were driven out first until after the shot was fired. Cooney admitted that he and Lonergan had sticks, but were not otherwise armed. He continued to assert that the three women were very violent, but admitted that the three men could have defended themselves without a shot.
It was daylight when they came on the ground. They left Waterford at 11 o’clock at night. They stopped at Mackey’s on the way and too refreshment. They remained at Mackey’s until “clear daylight.” Cooney described Mackey’s as 4 or 5 miles from Rochestown. Deceased had not run from the prisoner she was sideways, stooping for a stone, about 6 or 8 yards from prisoner.
When the prisoner fell his pistol went off. Cooney stated that the prisoner had not aimed at the deceased. Cooney stated his belief that the prisoner did not intend to fire at the deceased or to pull the trigger. About an hour after the shooting the prisoner said that the pistol went off by accident. Although Cooney stated that the prisoner’s life was in danger, if Cooney was in the same situation he would not have fired at the deceased. Cooney could not say how the pistol went off.
Dr. Briscoe Recalled
Dr. Briscoe was asked about the wound. He testified that it was horizontal. He stated that if the deceased was stooping he could not conceive how she received such a wound unless she and the shooter were both kneeling. Thus Dr. Briscoe did not find injuries on the deceased’s neck and ruled out that the deceased was stooping when shot.
The Testimony of Pierse Edward Forristal, Esq. of Rochestown, Glenmore
“Recollected the morning when this transaction happened.” He saw the prisoner 6 or 8 minutes after the shooting. Prisoner was distraining for Forristal and had frequently before acted as bailiff on his lands. He had distrained them a short time before. The prisoner had “always behaved himself well, and if he had a bad character, he would not have employed him.” Forristal stated that the prisoner is a pensioner and lost his hand “on service.” He went on to testify that the prisoner “frequently interfered” with Forristal in favour of the tenants by always speaking kindly of them and “procured time for them.”
Cross Examination of Pierse Edward Forristal, Esq.
Forristal testified that he sent for the prisoner to act as bailiff and bring 5 men with him. He also instructed that they should be very early on the land “as the Powers had removed their cattle on a former occasion.” Prisoner called to Forristal about 3 o’clock in the morning and told Forristal he had affected the distress. Forristal ordered his horse to be got ready. Jeffers arrived and said that the Powers had taken away horses and cows. The prisoner returned to Power’s. When Forristal arrived he learned of the shooting.
Forristal asked the prisoner why he fired. Prisoner responded that “he’d rather he had wounded himself than the girl.” Forristal testified that Tom Power said to the prisoner, “you have murdered my daughter.” The prisoner replied, “I did not intend to shoot her, but if I did it was her own fault.” The prisoner then unbuttoned the knee of his breeches and showed a large mark on his knee saying, “See Mr. Forristal, how I have been used.” [Of course he could have injured his knee at any time stumbling around in the dark after leaving Mackey’s where they had “refreshments.”]
The prisoner did not tell Mr. Forristal that the pistol went off by accident and Forristal never heard that it did.
The last witness called was Rev. Francis Reynett who testified that he knew the prisoner for about 18 years. He considered him a well conducted man and never heard anything against his character.
Jury Decision
The Lord Chief Justice charged the jury and they retired, “and in a few minutes they returned with a verdict, acquitting the prisoner of murder, but finding him guilty of manslaughter. They also acquitted the prisoner of presenting the pistol at Luke Power.”
The Chief justice sentenced the prisoner to be burned on the hand and imprisoned for 6 months.
What Happened to the Power Family of Rochestown, Glenmore?
We know that no one by the name of Power or Hanrahan were listed as tenants in Rochestown in the 1829 Tithe Lists. We are currently searching Prof. Mannion’s Newfoundland records of Irish emigrants 1750 to 1850 because several Rochestown families moved there in the early 19th century.
UPDATE–28 June 2026–The one armed killer, Thomas Marks a few years after escaping the noose committed another violent assault. “Committed to the City Gaol, by the Right Worshipful the Mayor, Thomas Marks, a man who has lost a hand and replaced it with an Iron substitute, and who is now charged with having violently assaulted and struck with his iron hand a man called Peter Power (Waterford Mirror, Mon. 10 May 1824, p. 3).
For some information on Rochestown see our post of 3 December 2023.
******************
Please send any corrections or additional information to glenmore.history@gmail.com
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh