Crimes
now browsing by category
From Danny’s Files: The Manslaughter of Catherine Fitzgerald of Glenmore, Waterford
Danny Dowling (1927-2021) spent a considerable amount of time in the Waterford Public Library searching old local newspapers for news articles regarding Glenmore. Danny recorded that in the Waterford Mail of Saturday, the 21st of July 1838, Cornelius Fitzgerald was transported for 15 years for the manslaughter of his wife Catherine Fitzgerald, at Windgap, the 25th of March.
It is not apparent from his notes, but it is likely that Danny realized quickly after reading the article that the Glenmore where the Fitzgeralds lived was located in County Waterford. We are featuring the Waterford manslaughter case today because of the insight it provides to crime and justice in the early 19th century. It also serves as a useful contrast to the 1822 manslaughter of Catherine Hanrahan (c. 1798-1822) of Rochestown, Glenmore which we posted on 6 November 2022. Catherine Hanrahan was pregnant and shot in the back by a Waterford bailiff who was sentenced to 6 months for her manslaughter.
Bridget Fitzgerald née Mulcahy (?-1838)
We were unable to locate baptismal or marriage records for Bridget Mulcahy and her husband Cornelius Fitzgerald. We know from the newspaper accounts, of Cornelius Fitzgerald’s trial for the manslaughter of his pregnant wife, that the couple were married about 1833. We were able to locate baptismal records for three children born to the couple: (1) James Fitzgerald was baptized on 10 November 1833; (2) Catherine Fitzgerald was baptized on 11 September 1836, and (3) Cornelius Fitzgerald was baptized on the 22 April 1838. All three of the children were baptized in the parish of Dungarvan, Co. Waterford. According to testimony at his father’s trial, Cornelius the youngest child, only lived 4 days. It is not known if either of Bridget’s other known children survived her.
Waterford Assizes July 1838
Some of the convictions of the Waterford Assizes of July 1838 are outlined below. There is a lot of concern today regarding violent crime, but it seems apparent that in 1838 society was very violent. In one month in Waterford there were two convictions for murder, one conviction for manslaughter and a conviction for what today would be an aggravated assault on an elderly man.
At the County Waterford Assizes at the end of July 1838, the following convictions were recorded: Cornelius Fitzgerald, for killing his wife, when in a state of pregnancy, was sentenced to 15 years’ transportation; John Fitzgerald, of Cappa, was convicted for harbouring and maintaining the notorious Connery’s, convicts and prison breakers; William Merman, carpenter, for the murder of his apprentice to be hanged the 4th of August; Martin Kelly, for shooting at, and grievously wounding the late Mr. John Keeffe (who was aged over 80); and John and Patrick Connery, goal breaking, were senteced to 15 years’ transportation (Kerry Evening Post, Wed. 25 July 1838, p. 1).
At the Waterford City Assizes, Andrew English was convicted of stealing sheep and sentenced to 15 years’ transportation. Thus, Cornelius Fitgerald received the same sentence for killing his wife as another man received who stole sheep and two other men received who broke out of prison. Lastly, Thomas McCarthy was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to hang on the 4th of August (Waterford Mail, Sat. 21 July 1838 p. 3). Thomas Carthy (sic) was granted a “respite until further orders” for the murder of his wife. He was recommended to “mercy on account of imbecility of mind” (Waterford Mail, Sat. 4 August 1838, p. 2).
The Trial of Cornelus Fitzgerald
Although the results of his trial were reported widely, the details of the trial were only reported in two Waterford newspapers: The Waterford Mail (Sat. 21 July 1838, p. 2) and the Waterford Chronicle (Sat. 21 July 1838, p. 7). We shall utilise the slightly longer Waterford Mail and place any additional facts or information from the Waterford Chronicle in parentheses.
Cornelius Fitzgerald was put forward, charged with the manslaughter of his wife, Bridget Fitzgerald, at Windgap, on the 25th of March 1838.
The Testimony of Mary Keily/Keife
Mary Keily was sworn and examined by Counsellor Dixon. (The Chronicle reported that Mary Keife, not Keily, was sworn and examined through an interpreter, Mr. Dixon.) It seems likely that all the witnesses and probably the defendant only spoke Irish while the trial was conducted in English. However, the reference to an interpreter was only made regarding the testimony of Mary Keily/Keife.
Mary testified that she knew “the prisoner at the bar” for the last 20 years, and she knew his wife, Bridget Fitzgerald. She explained that the prisoner and his wife lived near her at Glenmore. She stated that the prisoner and his deceased wife were “5 years married.” Before her death the deceased “was in the family way.” Mary stated that Brigid died on “last Easter Monday.” Easter in 1838 fell on Sunday the 15th of April which suggests that Bridget Fitzgerald died on the 16th of April and did not die on the 25th of March as her husband was charged.
Mary testified that she often saw the prisoner strike his wife, but she did not see him strike her for some time before her death. Mary saw him kick his wife and beat her with a rope and an iron back band. Bridget Fitzgerald only lived a short time after her lying in. Mary saw bruises on Brigid on the Good Friday before her death. She also had a cut on her head and blood on it. Mary washed Bridget’s head twice (and both times there was blood in the water.) She saw Brigid’s black back only at the inquest.
Cross Examination of Mary Keily/Keife
Mr. Hassard conducted the cross examination. Mary stated that it was the prisoner that called her to attend his wife during her confinement. He did not go for Bridget’s mother although her mother had been with her the week before her death. The prisoner and a little boy went for the priest, but when the priest arrived Bridget was insensible. The child Brigid bore lived four days after his birth. Mary could not tell at what time Brigid was struck with the backband.
The Testimony of Mrs. Bridget Mulcahy
Bridget Mulcahy was sworn, and examined by Counsellor Scott, Q.C. Bridget testified that she was the mother of the deceased, and that she had been with the deceased a week before her death. When she arrived at the house she went into the room where her daughter was lying, and found her “like a beehive” at the foot the bed. Her daughter told her to look at her head, and “said that she did not consider the pain in her head to be compared with her back.” She told her mother that “she was killed on the Friday before Good Friday,” when struck with bellows that the prisoner threw at her. Her daughter went on to say that “the blood coming from her head made her heart break and that it was her husband that killed her.” Mrs. Mulcahy testified that her daughter was delivered before she died in the week after Good Friday. Mr. Hassard cross-examined this witness, “but nothing material was elicited.”
The Testimony of Doctor Travers
Dr. Travers was examined by Counsellor Porter, Q.C. Dr, Travers testified that he performed a post mortem on the deceased about a week to ten days after she was buried. (He could not recall the date in early May). He found there was an open wound on the head about one inch and quarter long. The wound might have been given the week before the examination. He noted that there was also blackness about the abdomen and on the back. Dr. Travers said “he rather thinks that the wound was occasioned by violence.”
He also stated that there were “no evident marks to occasion the death of the deceased.” While the wound on the head was open, a blow on the abdomen, or on the spine, would be of great injury to person in the state the woman was in. He did not find any coagulated blood on the wound on the head. The doctor opined that the injuries might have brought on premature labour. In the doctor’s opinion, from the state of the womb, the wounds would have caused death. (The Waterford Chronicle reported that the doctor stated that death was caused in his opinion “from all of the circumstances, was, that violence was the cause.”)
(In response to a question from a juror the doctor stated that he thought the injuries caused premature labour.)
The Cross Examination of Doctor Travers
Cross-examined by Mr. Hassard the doctor testified that the midwife could have a better knowledge of the state of the woman because he had not seen the body until seven or ten days after interment. (If he had seen the blackness on the body before burying, he might say that they were not the cause of violence.) (The doctor also stated that if two ignorant women had been attending a person in her confinement, it is not unlikely that there would be more danger in that case.) (In response to another question from a juror the doctor stated that he believed that the woman who attended as a midwife was not usually employed in that way.)
The Verdict & Sentence
The defence did not put forth any witnesses. Mr. Hassard addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner (spoke to evidence, and said that the case was one of very considerable doubt at least. The learned gentlemen proceeded to speak at great length, and with much eloquence on the evidence. )
Mr. Hassard “dealt with the Crown Counsel with some severity for not having brought forward a person of the name of Shea who had been instrumental in ‘exciting’ the prosecution.” This “occasioned some warm expressions between him and Mr. Scott.” The matter was only settled when Mr. Scott explained “the cause for not bringing Shea forward.” The judge having charged the jury, they retired, and in few minutes found a verdict of guilty. (In contrast the Waterford Chronicle reported, the judge charged the jury at very considerable length, who retired for some time, and returned a verdict of guilty).
Cornelius Fitgerald was sentenced to be transported for 15 years.
Please send any corrections or additional information to glenmore.history@gmail.com.
The featured photo above is courtesy of wikimedia and depicts the 19th century connvict ship The Neptune. For further reading on transportation see generally, Allingham, “Transportation as Judicial Punishment in 19th Century Britain.”
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
From Danny’s Files: Glenmore Fight Paddy’s Day 1902
Tucked into Danny’s voluminous collection was a copy of a newspaper account of the Kilmacow Petty Sessions in 1902 where several young Glenmore men were charged with assault. Three of the young men were Kennedys. In the 19th century there were 7 Kennedy families living in Rathinure. Kennedys from Rathinure were related to the Kennedys of Newtown, Coolaneen and Ballinclare, Glenmore. Interestingly today there are no Kennedys in Rathinure although several current families descend from Kennedys. The last Kennedy to live in Rathinure was Larry Kennedy (1913-2002) (of the Faddie Kennedy family) and the last Kennedy of Rathinure was Cissy Kennedy (1930-2024) of the Pierce Kennedy family).
Kilmacow Petty Sessions, 10 April 1902
At the Kilmacow Petty Sessions on 10 April 1902 there were a large number of assault cases. All these cases were adjourned until the next court date. Magistrates were Mr. De la Poer, Dr. Conn, and Mr. Graves. The complainants in these cases were P. Kennedy, Martin Kehoe, who had four cases; Peter Kennedy and John Kehoe. There were several cross summonses (Munster Express, Sat. 12 April 1902, p. 5). Although it is not recorded in the newspaper one of the complainants John Kehoe died on the 5th of April and this may have been the reason the assault cases were adjourned until May.
Apparently arising from the assaults, Sergeant Stapleton, of the Glenmore R.I.C. charged John Kirwan, publican, Ballyrahan, for allowing riotous conduct at his place. This charge was dismissed on 10 April 1902 (Munster Express, Sat. 12 April 1902, p. 5).
For further information on the closure of “The Shanty” see our post of 8 May 2023 . See Martin Forristal’s article “Mount Ida” for further information on the landlord Dr. Phillips-Conn of Mount Ida, Glenmore.
Oral Tradition of Incident
Statia Walsh née Kennedy (1922-1984) of Rathinure, Glenmore was the eldest daughter of Peter Kennedy (1878-1962) Rathinure and his wife Elizabeth Walsh (1884-1958) a native of Powerswood, Thomastown. Although Statia was born 20 years after the 1902 event she recounted what she knew to her children primarily because it involved a number of cousins and neighbours. According to what Statia was told, and recounted, her father was at the Shanty with a number of young men from the area. A fight broke out between a Kennedy of Newtown and her father. During the fight Johnny Kehoe attempted to come to the aid of his first cousin, the Kennedy of Newtown, when Jim Kennedy of Rathinure struck and stopped Johnny Kehoe.
A short time after the fight Johnny Kehoe died, and Jim Kennedy was blamed for his death. However, a doctor proved that Johnny Kehoe died from his kidneys.
The Death of John Kehoe (1879 -1902)
John Kehoe, a 23 year bachelor (farmer’s son) died at the County Infirmary of Waterford on the 5th of April 1902. According to the death register, he died of uraemia and had it for six days before his death. D. Walshe the Coroner for South Kilkenny held an inquest on 7 April, 1902.
John Kehoe was born 10 July 1879 at Rathinure the son of Richard Kehoe (farmer) and Margaret Costello. Richard Kehoe married Margaret Costello (c. 1845 -1899) of Ballymountain, at Kilmacow on 23 February 1873. Other children to this union included: Patrick Keogh (b. 1874); Margaret Kehoe (b. 1875); Martin Kehoe (b. 1876); Mary Kehoe (b. 1881); and Patrick Keogh (b. 1883). See our K surname page for details regarding the tragic death of Margaret Kehoe on the Quay in Waterford in 1899.
We know that an inquest was held into John Kehoe’s death in 1902. His death cert references it, and it was discussed in the next sitting of the Kilmacow Petty Sessions of 8 May 1902. Unfortunately we were not able to locate a newspaper article regarding the inquest.
Kilmacow Petty Sessions, 8 May 1902
Two different newspapers covered the case and the two accounts agreed only on what magistrates were sitting and what the outcome was for all the young men. The headline of the Munster Express article was, “Patrick’s Day Celebration at Gaulstown Results in quarrelsome young men being bound to the peace.” The headline in the Waterford News and Star, was “Free Fight at Gaulstown, Near Glenmore.” Information obtained from the Munster Express, (Sat. 10 May 1902, p. 5) is marked ME below and information from the Waterford News & Star, (Fri. 9 May 1902, p. 7) is marked WNS.
The Kilmacow Petty Sessions heard the cases on 8 May 1902 before Magistrates Ulick Bourke, Resident Magistrate (presiding); A.E. Graves; P. Grant, Chairman Waterford No. 2 District Council and Arthur Brown. (ME) & (WNS)
Kennedy v. Keogh
Peter Kennedy summoned Martin Keogh for having assaulted him on the 17th March. There were a number of summonses and cross summonses arising out of the same occurrence, M. P.A. Murphy appeared for Kennedy, and Mr. H.D. Keane appeared for Keogh. (ME)
Peter Kennedy deposed, in reply to Mr. Murphy: I am a farmer’s son and I live at Rathnure; Keogh also lives there, and is a farmer’s son too. He then preceded to give evidence as to the assault alleged to have been committed on him by Keogh, which took place after he had fought Thomas Kennedy on the road near Mrs. Kirwan’s house beyond “the ‘Shanty;’ Richard Roche, James Kennedy, and Richard Ryan were also present; after fighting Thomas Kennedy he was kicked in the thigh by Martin Keogh, whose brother, John Keogh, who had since died, was present (ME).
The complainant deposed to Mr. Murphy that on the 17th of March, he was on his way home; he was accompanied by John Kennedy; they met the defendant [Martin Keogh] and Thomas Kennedy; the later pushed him into the ditch; and when he got as far as Mrs. Kirwan’s house he and John Kennedy sat on the ditch Thomas Kennedy who was accompanied by Richard Ryan, came over to him; caught him by the coat, and challenged him to fight; they fought and after the combat Martin Keogh kicked complainant in the hip; a fight then took place between him and Keogh.
Mr. Bourke [the Resident Magistrate] said the whole occurrence appeared to have been a general row, and the decision of the magistrates would probably be to bind them all to the peace. (ME)
Mr. Bourke—This thing was a fight instead of an assault. (WNS)
Mr. Murphy [for Peter Kennedy]: I have already suggested that the case should be settled. I don’t care whether my clients like it or not, but it appears to me it is one of these squabbles in which both parties were equally to blame. (ME)
Mr. Murphy—It would be better for the parties to shake hands over the matter and go home. (WNS)
Mr. Keane: I would be very glad to acquiesce in the case of Thomas Kennedy against Peter Kennedy, but there is a case of wanton and aggravated assault by Peter Kennedy on Martin Keogh. (ME)
Mr. Keane: I would be willing to acquiesce in the remarks made by Mr. Murphy. There was a lot of evidence to be taken in the case, and if it was gone into their worships would see that a most aggravated assault had been perpetrated on Peter Kennedy by Martin Keogh. (WNS) [It is rather doubtful that Keogh’s representative, Mr. Keane, would argue that an aggravated assault was perpetrated on Peter Kennedy by his client Martin Keogh.]
The Waterford News and Star published that Richard Roche testified that he was not present at the outset of the row; he saw Thomas Kennedy and Peter fighting; Keogh subsequently kicked Peter Kennedy. James Kennedy deposed that he was looking at the row, but he did not see Keogh kick Peter Kennedy.
Keogh v. Kennedy
The hearing of the summonses was then proceeded with. In the case of Martin Keogh v. Peter Kennedy it was alleged defendant knocked plaintiff down and beat him about the head with a stone; also that he was kicked when on the ground by Richard Roche. (ME)
Mr. Bourke: Where are the marks on his [Keogh’s] head? (ME)
Mr. Murphy: His head was evidently harder than the stone. (ME)
Mr. Keane: It is six weeks ago now since the assault. (ME)
Mr. Murphy: I know there are some good hard heads in Rathinure. (ME)
Keogh: They would want to be hard for that sort of work (laughter). (ME)
Mr. Murphy: asked the complainant [Martin Keogh] Patrick’s Day is a great day for a fight if there is a little beer in? (WNS)
Keough: It is. (WNS)
Mr. Murphy: You drown the shamrock on that day? (WNS)
Keogh: I suppose so. (WNS)
Mr. Murphy: And you thought the best way for winding up the celebration was to have free fight? (WNS)
Keogh—I did not. (WNS)
John Keogh’s Death Raised
Mr. Keane submitted that the evidence was quite conclusive regarding the assault on Keogh. John Keogh, his brother, who was present, was unfortunately dead— (ME)
Mr. Murphy: It is most unfair to draw the name of this young man who is dead into the case. (ME)
Mr. Bourke: At the inquest it was shown the occurrence had nothing whatever to say to his death. (ME)
Mr. Murphy: I was at the inquest, and a very fearful charge was made, with the result that a young fellow was arrested. Two doctors proved beyond yea or nay that young Keogh died from natural causes. (ME)
Mr. Keane: I do not wish to couple the death of John Keogh with the matter in court today at all. (ME)
The Court’s Holding
Mr. Bourke said the court had made up their minds to bind all parties to the peace, with the exception of Richard Roche. Each would have to give security for his good behaviour for 12 months, himself in £10, and two sureties of £5 each. (ME) (WNS)
Identifying the Participants
Peter Kennedy (1878-1962) of Rathinure was the son of Thomas Kennedy and his wife Anastatia Irish. In 1921 Peter married Elizabeth Walsh (1884-1958) a native of Powerswood, Thomastown. The couple had 5 daughters. Ironically, Peter Kennedy died on St. Patrick’s Day 1962 exactly 60 years after the fight.
It is not altogether clear who was the person in the first fight with Peter Kennedy (1878-1962). The newspaper state it was Thomas Kennedy, however the 1901 Census does not show a Thomas Kennedy in Newtown. There was a Patrick Kennedy (aged 26) in Newtown (Aylwardstown) the son of Richard Kennedy (aged 70) and his wife Alice Kehoe (aged 60). The first article (Munster Express, Sat. 12 April 1902, p. 5) lists four complainants: P. Kennedy, Martin Kehoe, Peter Kennedy and John Kennedy. No T. or Thomas Kennedy was mentioned. There was a Thomas Kennedy in Rathinure; he was a brother of Jim Kennedy. It is doubtful that this relationship would not have been raised in court if the first fight was with Thomas Kennedy of Rathinure.
Jim or James Kennedy was one of the Faddie Kennedy’s of Rathinure. James was born on 15 May 1877 to Thomas Kennedy and his wife Catherine Phelan. In 1908, he emigrated to the U.S. with James Delahunty (b.c. 1877) of Aylwardstown).
Martin Keogh (1876-1954) was the brother of the deceased John Keogh (1879-1902). Martin married Bridie Walsh, of Smithstown, Tullogher and they farmed in Rathinure. Bridie was a first cousin to Larry Walsh of Rochestown (father of Martin Walsh (1918-1996) see our post of 31 Dec. 2023 regarding Martin Walsh).
Richard Roche, of Curraghmore, Slieverue, was only 16 in 1902. He and his family lived near the Shanty. It may be the case that he came upon the fight. According to the 1901 Census, Richard Roche was the son of James Roche (aged 59) and Kate Roche (aged 54). He had a brother Andrew (aged 17).
Please send any corrections, further information or photos to glenmore.history@gmail.com. The featured drawing is from a 1908 advertisement for boxing gloves.
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
From Danny’s Files: The 1906 Assault at Milltown, Glenmore
Over the years Danny Dowling (1927-2021) spent a great deal of time reading old local newspapers on microfiche machines in local libraries. His voluminous files are filled with newspapers articles he copied. Today, we are going to feature from Danny’s files the arrest of a well known, well liked and respected Glenmore farmer and horse breeder named Felix Mullins (1846-1919).
Felix Mullins was baptized on 11 April 1846 at Flemingstown, Glenmore the son of Patrick Mullins, Jr. (1818-1884) and Julia Brenan (1812-1891). His parents were married on 2 March 1840 at Mooncoin. Julia was from Ashgrove, Mooncoin. Felix Mullins never married. For further information on the Mullins family see our post of 10 January 2021.
The Assault at Milltown, Glenmore
The following newspaper article in Danny’s file was from the Waterford Mirror and Tramore Visitor (Thur. 19 July 1906, p. 5).
“On Wednesday morning Felix Mullins, of Glenmore, one of the most respectable farmers in the New Ross circuit, was arrested on a charge or having inflicted grievous bodily injury on an old man named Morrissey, a horse trainer, whose chief place of residence is Waterford. The accused was arrested by Sergeant Lynch, of Glenmore, and brought before Mr. Patrick Bolger, J.P., at the New Ross Workhouse Infirmary, where the injured man lay, and where depositions were taken.”
According to the statement of the victim James Morrissey, who was described as about 60 years of age, he attended the New Ross fair on Tuesday the 10th of July 1906. Morrissey “was returning by road to Waterford in the evening. He was being carried in a cart by two Tipperary men, and when they got to a place called Shanbogh, Felix Mullins overtook them. Mullins, he alleged drew on him with several strokes of a stick and he could not tell anything more until he found himself in the barracks at Glenmore.”
After Sergeant Lynch was examined, the accused was remanded on bail to the next New Ross Petty Session. Interestingly none of the newspaper articles mentioned that Felix Mullins was also 60 years of age in 1906.
Petty Session Records
Further details were found in the Petty Session Court Register, of 11 July 1906. Magistrate Bolger recorded that “Depositions of James Morrissey and Sergt C. Lynch taken and as injured man will not be able to attend for some time, case adjourned for 8 days. Mullins admitted to bail himself of £10.0.0 and two sureties of £5.0.0 each. Injured man in workhouse infirmary.”
The Petty Session Court Register, of 27 July 1906 notes that “James Morrissey still being unable to attend. Defendant further remanded until Friday 20th inst. and admitted to bail himself £10 and two sureties in £5 each.”
Hearing of 10 August 1906
The New Ross Standard (Fri. 17 August 1906, p. 13) published an extensive account of the proceedings of 10 August 1906.. Resident Magistrate Sir Wm. Paul and four other magistrates heard the case. District Inspector Smythe prosecuted. James Morrissey was described as a horse trainer from Waterford, of no fixed residence. Dr. Browne, solicitor, appeared for the defendant Felix Mullins.
Testimony of the Victim James Morrissey
“Morrissey, who is lame, appeared with his injured arm in a sling. He was sworn, and called on to listen to the deposition made by him in the New Ross Workhouse Infirmary before Mr. Thomas (sic) Bolger, J.P. after the occurrence. The deposition stated that Morrissey was a labourer and horse trainer, and had been at the Fair of New Ross on the 10th of July. He left in the afternoon to go to James Flemings , near Waterford, where he had been stopping.”
“Two Tipperary men, whom he did not know, had a horse and trap, and he got a lift from them. When he went as far as Milltown, Felix Mullins passed him with a horse and trap and John (sic) Duggan was with Mullins. Mullins said that deponent was always running down his horses, and Mullins got out of the trap, and struck deponent several times with a stick on the head. Deponent was also struck on the left hand by Mullins, and also on the legs. Deponent was attended by a doctor, who dressed and stitched his wounds. Deponent believed he must have given Felix Mullins some provocation before he struck him.”
Proper Court for Glenmore Assault Case?
One of the more interesting exchanges in the court commenced when Dr. Browne suggested that the case could be dealt with by the magistrates. In essence this would have meant that Felix Mulllins would face a simple assault charge rather than being sent to stand trial for a felony. Browne argued that there was never any danger at any time of Morrissey’s life except from septic poisoning. No bones were broken, and the man was all right.
District Inspector Smythe—It is my duty to ask that the case be returned for trial. It was a serious assault case, endangering life.
Dr. Browne—The man is all right now; and he was never in any danger except from septic poisoning, which might result from any wound.
Morrissey—Are you a doctor?
Mr. Colfer—Oh, he is.
Dr. Browne held a doctorate degree, but was not a medical doctor. Apparently ignoring the exchange between the victim and a magistrate, Dr. Browne continued to plead for having the case to be summarily dealt with by the Magistrates.
Morrissey—There are five wounds in that head there, and look at my hand and leg.
Dr. Browne reminded the court that the lameness of Morrissey’s leg was natural.
Morrissey—But sure I was struck on it. I was not well able to put it under me this morning, and I can’t walk too much on it, and it was the sergeant asked me to walk down, and that hand is useless since, and the doctor put splays to it.
Chairman—Unless the magistrates had medical evidence to show that his man was not so seriously injured as apparently according to that deposition he was, they would not like to take the responsibility of reducing the charge.
Dr. Browne said he would have had the doctor, who was attending Morrissey present, only he thought the Crown would. District Inspector Smythe replied that he would not have the doctor present unless the magistrates ordered it. Dr. Browne said that unfortunately Dr. Dwyer who attended Morrissey when he came into the hospital was away on holidays. However, he would send for Dr. Hickey who was presently attending Morrissey in the hospital.
When Dr. Hickey arrived at the court the Magistrates stated that they were in agreement that they did not want to hear from Dr. Hickey. They agreed that the proper medical testimony should come from Dr. Dwyer who treated Morrissey after the assault.
Testimony of Sergeant Cornelius Lynch of Glenmore R.I.C.
Sergeant Cornelius Lynch deposed that on the evening of the 10th of July information reached him that James Morrissey had been seriously assaulted on the road near Milltown, County Kilkenny. Witness arrested Mullins, and having given him the usual caution Mullins said: “He is always running down my horses. He has put a many a pound out of my pocket.” Witness found Morrissey lying on his back in the haggard of James Power, Jamestown, Glenmore. Morrissey had some drink taken.
Morrissey interrupted—If I required a character in the morning, I could get it. Morrissey then went on to belittle the character of Mullins and his horses, and Dr. Browne called the attention of the court to his statement. Browne said this was the sort of thing that was going on, and “that Mullins was submitting to this a long time.”
Testimony of Richard Duggan of Flemingstown, Glenmore
Richard Duggan, replying to District Inspector Smythe, testified that on the 10th July he was in New Ross. He left New Ross to return home about four or five in the evening with Mr. Mullins, the defendant, in a trap. “On the road home he remembered passing James Morrissey at Milltown. Morrissey was on the side of the road with blood on him. That was not the first time he saw Morrissey.”
“Witness first saw Morrissey at the New Ross side of Milltown. Morrissey was then in a car with two other men whom witness did not know. Morrissey was arguing, witness could not say with whom, but recollected that Morrissey said something to Mullins, and Mullins got off the car and went over to him. Witness saw no assault.”
Dr. Browne—We admit he struck this man.
“Examination continued, witness said that a wrangle then took place between Mullins and Morrissey, but witness did not see Mullins strike Morrissey. Witness was watching the beast at the time. Witness saw an ash plant in Mullins’ hand. After the wrangle Mullins got on the trap and drove off. When Mullins was leaving, witness saw Morrissey in a stooping position on the ground with blood on his head and face. Witness did not remember anything more and drove home with Mr. Mullins.”
Dr. Browne—I don’t want to ask the witness anything.
The Testimony of Sergeant Cornelius Lynch of Glenmore R.I.C.
“Sergeant Lynch then added to his deposition. When he reached Jamestown, about half past seven on the evening on the 10th July, he brought Morrissey in an ass’s car to the barracks to which he was not able to walk. He then sent one of the police to Dr. Dwyer who came and dressed his wounds.”
“Sergeant Lynch stated that there were four bad cuts on Morrisssey’s head, into which Dr. Dwyer put several stitches. There was a cut on the back of each of his hands. There was a cut on his right leg. Morrissey remained in the barrack all night until the following morning, when he was removed to New Ross Union hospital, and will have to go back to the hospital again.”
Under cross examination Sergeant Lynch stated that he was stationed in Glenmore for the past two and a half years. “He made inquiries about the character of Morrissey since the assault, and heard that he was of a drunken, quarrelsome character. Witness also heard that there was a warrant against Morrissey for being drunk.”
Cross Examination of the Victim
“James Morrissey, was recalled for cross-examination and admitted that a fortnight before the assault he was fined in this court for assault. He was also fined, he said, a long time ago for drunkenness. The injured man then volunteered the statement that he was horse trainer and that if he wanted a character he could get it from Mr. Power, of Faithleg; Mr. Power, of Bellevue; and Captain Bloomfield.”
Morrissey said that he would not ask a “character “from Felix Mullins, who called him an old blackguard, but he alleged the contrary to be the fact. According to the newspaper he went on to make a number of saucey (sic) remarks. He admitted that Felix Mullins got him a job with his brother Kieran, but he did not want the job because Kieran Mullins would only give him a shilling a day. He would not stop with him.”
Further questioned, Morrissey denied that he abused Felix Mullins or Felix Mullin’s horses, or tried to prevent farmers sending their mares to him. The witness then went on to comment that everyone knew about the performance of Mullin’s horse at Tramore race, and he alleged that a good cob would beat him.
Dr. Browne—Was Mr. Mullin’s horse bet?
“Bet,” said Morrissey with withering emphasis, “ oh indeed he was.”
Dr. Browne to the Magistrates—”This is the sort of thing that has been going on.”
Sergeant Lynch stated that Mr. Felix Mullins was one of the most respectable men in the parish of Glenmore, and bore the highest character. The case was then returned for trial for the next quarter session in Thomastown. The defendant reserved his defence, and continued on bail.
Thomastown Quarter Session Court
The Kilkenny People (Sat. 6 October 1906, p. 2) carried a short account of the case and amazingly incorrectly reported that Felix Mullins was from the Inistioge (sic) area.
“A true bill was found against a most respectable farmer named Felix Mullins from outside Inistioge (sic) for assaulting on the 10th of July James Morrissey thereby doing him bodily harm. Mr. D.J. O’Brien, B.L. (instructed by Mr. Brown, LL.D., New Ross) appeared for the prisoner. He said he was instructed to plead guilty on behalf of the prisoner who was a large farmer and kept stallion horses.”
“According to his instruction this man, Morrissey, circulated around the country damaging reports as regards the prisoner’s horses, and one day when they met on the road Morrissey refused to allow the prisoner to pass. The prisoner then it appeared struck Morrissey with an ashplant. They had already given Morrissey compensation for the injury done to him.”
“Mr. E.K.B. Tighe, D.L., Woodstock, was called to give evidence as to the prisoner’s character. Witness knew him for the last 18 years and always knew him to be a most respectable man. On the occasion of his Majesty’s visit to Kilkenny in 1902, it was witness’s intention to present the prisoner as one of the most worthy men of the district to his Majesty, had the latter been able to come to Woodstock. His Honor allowed the prisoner out on his own recognizance.”
[The King that visited Kilkenny in 1902 was Edward VII. Less than 20 years after Tighe testified for Felix Mulins his home, Woodstock House, was one of the many stately homes burned in 1922.]
Unfortunately, no record of the sentence given to Felix Mullins could be located. Given the fact that Felix Mullins paid compensation to the victim, admitted the charge, was given a sterling character reference by an important and connected person and was released on his own recognizance, it is likely that his sentence was a fine.
Prior Charge of Assault
It did not come out in any of the newspaper coverage, but research in the Petty Session Registers revealed that Felix Mullins was charged on the 17th of April 1865 with unlawfully assaulting Thomas Walsh at Ballycroney, Glenmore (Petty Session Register, Rosbercon, 13 May 1865). No outcome for the case could be located. In 1865 Felix Mullins would have been about 19 years of age.
The End
We believe that James Morrissey died in the Waterford Union hospital on 13 January 1916 at the age of 78. It was reported that he was a bachelor, worked as a groom, and lived on Peter St. in Waterford City. No obituary or death notice could be located. If his age at death is correct James Morrissey was 68 at the time of the assault in 1906.
Felix Mullins, died at his residence in Flemingstown, Glenmore on the 24th of January 1919. Notwithstanding the 1906 assault case, the New Ross Standard (Fri. 7 Feb. 1919, p. 4) reported that “The deceased was a well known, extremely popular, and highly respected gentleman, and was the member of a widely connected and popular county family. His frank and gentlemanly disposition and benevolent nature earned for him the deepest esteem of all who knew him, and the most profound regret was felt at his death. The funeral to Glenmore was of huge proportions, and the attendance numbered many public and business men, and showed the immense popularity of himself and the members of the family and relatives.”
See our obituary page for the longer obituary published by the Waterford News & Star (Fri. 7 Feb. 1919, p. 8).
Please send corrections or additional information to glenmore.history@gmail.com.
The featured photo of the thoroughbred horse is courtesy of the New York Public Library’s Digital Collection. The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Print Collection, The New York Public Library. “Chestnut sorrel thoroughbred.” New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed August 3, 2023. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47db-c4ca-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99.
For information on the historic Thomastown Courthouse on Logan St. see the National Inventory of Architectual Heritage website. This building was also burned in 1922, but rebuilt in 1925.
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
From Danny’s Files: Prosecution of 4 Glenmore Men
Danny Dowling (1927-2021) spent over 7 decades interviewing people and collecting information concerning Glenmore and nearby areas. Found within Danny’s voluminous files was an article from the Waterford Standard concerning the Kilmacow Petty Sessions court held in August 1903. Two cases were reported in that newspaper that involved the Sunday closing of pubs law and the prosecution of four Glenmore men.
Irish Temperance League
According to the webpage of the Irish Temperance League it was formed in the 1850’s and continues to operate to this day. By the 1870’s across Ireland, Catholic and Protestant Clergy were united in efforts to curb alcohol consumption. In Glenmore all pubs in the Village were closed by the Parish Priest and there was no pub in the Village until 1963. See our previous post of 8 May 2023.
Known as “The Great Social Experiment” Bills were introduced several years in a row in the House of Commons, seeking to control and curtail the sale of alcohol. In 1872, it became a legal requirement to display the proprietor’s name over the front door. (For more interesting facts regarding Irish pubs see the Irish Post, (2016) “A Brief History of the Pub.”) The following year, when a Bill was introduced to close pubs on Sundays the MP for Leeds argued it was a bad idea because the populace would be left without access to alcohol for medicinal uses. It was also argued that the working man lived in poor conditions and needed the comforts of a pub (Irish Post (2016)). Interestingly there was no mention or concern for the wives and children who also lived in poor conditions.
The 1873 police returns revealed that there were 1,586 publicans, beer dealers and spirit grocers in Ireland. By 1880 the number fell to 1,284. The reduction of 302 over 7 years was due mainly to the closure of “the worst case of house” and others were temporarily closed due to the economic decline in that decade that left thousands of labouring men without work (T. W. Russel (1884) A Social Experiment: Five Years Before and After Sunday Closing in Ireland, p. 6).
The Sunday Closure Act 1878
Until 1878 pubs could remain open until 11 p.m. on Sundays. The Sunday Closing Act came into operation on the 13th of October 1878. Under the ACT the hours of sale were reduced to 2 to 7 p.m. and from 2 to 9 p.m. in all places with a population exceeding 5,000. The cities with the longer hours were Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. During the 4.5 years after the enactment Sunday arrests for drunkenness fell by 53% (T.W. Russel (1884) p. 1).
Two interesting aspects of the Act was that the Sunday patrons were limited to bona fide travellers, and the Act was not permanent. A Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in 1882 to make it permanent and to extend its provisions to all Ireland. A bona fide traveller was a patron who traveled a prescribed distance from his home.
Saturday Early Closing Bills
With the deemed success of the Sunday closures the Irish Temperance League and united clergy turned their attention to Saturdays. The Saturday Earlier Closing Bill was introduced year after year commencing in 1879. Eventually, a Committee was formed which had 18 sittings for taking evidence from 40 witnesses. In total 11,091 questions were put to the witnesses.
After two days of discussion the Committee reported that “The witnesses…have given strong evidence in favour of curtailing the hours of sale on Saturdays. The Committee are of opinion that a great deal of excessive drinking which has been proved to take place on Saturday nights, and much of the squandering of the wages of the working classes would be avoided if public-houses were closed earlier on that day, and they are satisfied that such a measure would be supported by public opinion generally throughout Ireland.”
The Committee recommended that the Act of 1878 should be made perpetual and extended to the five cities exempted from the full operation of the Act. That the qualifying distance under the bona fide provisions should be extended to six miles. That all houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland should be closed at 9 p.m. on Saturdays (Irish Temperance League (1889) Summary of the History of the Sunday Closing and Saturday Evening Closing Movement ion Ireland, and the Position of the Government in Relation to the present Bill—February, 1889.
Kilmacow Petty Sessions 27 August 1903
The Kilmacow Petty Sessions were held on Thursday the 27th before Ulick Bourke, Resident Magistrate and Major Giles. Mr. Bowers, CPS was also present.
Catherine McDonell, a Mullinavat Publican
Two cases involving pubs were reported in the Waterford Standard newspaper. The first involved Catherine McDonnell a Mullinavat publican who was charged with having permitted drunkenness in her house on Sunday the 5th of July. It was alleged that Mrs. McDonnell had put “everyone out” by 7 p.m., but James Dalton regained entry by climbing over the wall that surrounded the premises.
The police found James Dalton drunk on the licensed premises after 7 p.m. when they visited. Mrs. McDonnell swore that she did not provide Dalton with any drink after 6:30 p.m. Major Giles was strongly in favour of a conviction, but Mr. Bourke did not agree with him. “After a lengthened debate Major Giles gave way on a point of law, and the case was dismissed.” (Waterford Standard, Sat. 29 Aug. 1903, p. 3).
Four Glenmore Men Arrested in Slieverue
The second pub case was entitled, “A Serious Question for Publicans—How long Can a Man Stay in a Publichouse?”
Sergeant Quinn charged Richard Grant, Slieverue, with a breach of the Sunday Closing Act. Head-Constable Keegan prosecuted, and Mr. P. A. Murphy defended.
Sergeant Quinn testified that on Sunday, June 28th, he visited the premises of Richard Grant at twelve o’clock noon and found about 40 people on the premises. Quinn went through the drinker and thought they were all bona fide travellers. Quinn belived that Edward Murphy, Pat McDonald, Robert Walsh and Francis Rielly were from Glenmore.
At 2:30 Quinn again went to the “house” and found the same men drinking. He spoke to them in the presence of the publican and asked Murphy why he was there so long. Murphy replied he could remain from six in the morning until six at night if he liked. “He went away with Rielly. Walsh and McDonald were there also, and they had been there the same time.”
“Mass commenced at eleven and was over about twelve, and these people attended the service. All four men live in the parish of Glenmore, and Glenmore Chapel would be nearer to any of them than going to Slieverue, but they could not get a public house” in Glenmore. Sergeant Quinn noticed Rielly “had the appearance of drink.” Sergeant Quinn went on to testify that Murphy and the publican had been summoned some time previously for similar offences, and the cases had been dismissed.
Mr. P.A. Murphy for the defendant cross examined the sergeant. Quinn testified that “his case was that these men stayed an overlong time in the house, and though bona fide travellers at 12 o’clock they had no right to stay until 2:30.”
“Mr. Murphy said the case would undoubtedly go further, but he would like it clearly understood the case for the Crown was that at 12 o’clock these men were admittedly bona fide travellers, but they were not bona fide travellers at 2:30. He contended that no such offense as the present one against the publican should have been brought. The police could only have brought a case of permitting drunkenness, but there was no such charge in this case. Mr. Murphy then read several recorded cases to prove his contentions. An exactly similar case occurred before, and the magistrates’ decision was reversed by the County Court Judge. “
The magistrates dismissed the case, but allowed a case to be stated, where the matter “will be thoroughly threshed out in the Superior Court. Mr Bourke, R.M. drew up the various points to be submitted for argument. The cases against the four men found on the premises were adjourned.”
Cases Adjourned for the Bona Fide Glenmore Travellers
Thus, it appears that the publican with legal representation had his case dismissed, but the four Glenmore patrons had their cases adjourned until the unnamed Superior Court could rule on various points of law the magistrates sent to it. No further newspapers articles could be located regarding these cases from 1903, so the question of whether a bona fide traveller could lose his status and thus fall foul of the law was not published. However, the reporting of the case clearly illustrates the Sunday Closure Act was still in operation and any Glenmore person seeking a drink on a Sunday when he went beyond Glenmore parish he became a bona fide traveller within the meaning of the Act. As a bona fide traveller Glenmore people were entitled to seek alcohol at pubs more than 6 miles from home.
Whether the men were bona fide travellers is another issue. A quick search of the 1901 Census reveals more then 1 person named Robert Walsh and Edward Murphy in Glenmore parish. Two of this group with the same names lived within 2 or 3 miles of Slieverue. However, there were no persons found named Pat McDonald and Francis Rielly, although a family of Riellys lived in Slieverue parish in Ballyrowagh adjacent to the Glenmore line.
Please send any additional information or corrections to glenmore.history@gmail.com.
The photo of Stapleton’s pub of Slieverue was taken today. It is not known where Richard Grant’s pub was located in 1903 in Slieverue.
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
The Killing in 1822 of Catherine Hanrahan of Rochestown, Glenmore
Due to a typographical error, 1822 was placed in a newspaper search engine rather than 1922. However, from this simple mistake sprang an apparently long forgotten story concerning a young pregnant mother, named Catherine Hanrahan, of Rochestown, Glenmore, who was shot and killed by a one-armed Waterford bailiff in July 1822.
Catherine Hanrahan née Power (c. 1798-1822)
From the newspaper accounts of her killing we know that Catherine was the daughter of Thomas Power and her husband was Thomas Hanrahan. We were able to find a marriage record for Catherine Power and Thomas Hanrahan. Thomas Hanrahan and Catherine Power of Rochestown married 14 February 1820 at Slieverue. The witnesses to the wedding were: William Hanrahan, Thomas Hanrahan and James Cashin. The following year the couple had their first child, Judith Hanrahan. Judith was baptised 12 April 1821 at Rochestown. Her godparents were Luke Power and Nelly Foristal (sic). It does not appear that Luke Power was a brother of Catherine because the newspapers in reporting on her killing noted her parents and younger sisters mourning her death. One newspaper recorded Catherine being aged 23 at the time of her death and another gave her age as 24. The only Catherine Power we found in the Slieverue records for the years 1797-1799 was Catherine Power, of Boherbee, baptized 25 May 1797 to Thomas Power and Mary Welsh. Glenmore did not become a separate parish until 1844, so the earliest parish records are in Slieverue.
1822
The year 1822 was a year when food was not plentiful in Ireland and famine visited the west of the country. This was also the year that the Royal Irish Constabulary was established by Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850). Catherine was shot on Monday, 1st July 1822 and lingered in agony until her death Sunday, 7th July 1822. The Waterford Chronicle (Thurs. 11 July 1822, p. 3) stated that a report was circulating in Waterford City for a couple of days “…that a poor woman had been fired at and severely wounded, near Rochestown, by a man from this City, named Marks, employed to watch some property distrained. We forbore to notice the rumour at the time, having been unable to trace it to any authentic source; but we have since learned the melancholy fact, that the unfortunate woman died of the wound on Sunday. As the circumstances will of course undergo a judicial investigation, we refrain from saying more at present.” The Waterford Mirror (reprinted in the Carlow Morning Post, Mon. 15 July 1822, p. 3) noted that it had twice reported on the “unhappy occurrence” at “Rochestown, Barony of Ida, County Kilkenny, a place not under proclamation.”
“Not under proclamation” was a phrase used to describe the area as law abiding. Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) was the chief secretary of Ireland from 1812 to 1818 and the driving force behind “An Act …to provide for the better execution of the laws in Ireland, by appointing Superintending Magistrates and additional constables in Counties in certain cases…[that] are in a State of Disturbance (54, George III, c. 131, 25 July 1814). Generally, if it was declared by a public Proclamation that an area was in a state of disturbance additional police and magistrates were put in place to quickly quell disturbances. Due to Sir Robert Peel’s establishment of professional police groups police were often referred to as “peelers” and “bobbies.” These terms are still used today.
The most detailed account of Catherine’s killing was found in the Leinster Journal (Sat. 13 July 1822, p. 2).
COUNTY POLICE—On the morning of the 1st instant, six or seven bailiffs were sent to Rochestown, in this county, to distrain of Thomas Power, for rent due to Pierce Edward Forrestall (sic), Esq. They arrived at the village long before sun-rise, and appear to have endeavoured to seize the pigs. Power’s daughter, Catherine, a good young woman, aged 23, wife of Thomas Hanrahan, who was gone to the bog, having heard the noise, got up, and seeing no person in the bawn, went to drive back the pigs to rest, when one of the bailiffs, a ruffian of the name of Thomas Marks, a pensioner, who has only one hand and has an iron hook fixed on the stump of the other, jumped from a loose stone wall, and hooked her by the throat with that substitution for a hand. She screamed which roused her mother, sisters, and a neighbour. Having disengaged herself from the miscreant’s iron hook, she fled towards the house, on which this ruthless barbarian placed his foot on an elevated stone in the yard, rested his pistol on his knee, took deliberate aim at the poor woman, and fired. She received the ball to the region of the kidney and fell to the ground. Surgical aid was soon procured, but in vain. The ball could not be extracted, and she lingered in excruciating agony until Sunday morning last, when she died in the arms of her heart broken mother, and in the presence of her afflicted father, husband, four younger sisters, uncles, aunts, other relatives, and of her own babe which is only 14 months old. The hapless victim of the fiend was in a state of pregnancy. John Snow, Esq. on hearing of the affair, attended to take her information, but she was in too great tertiary to give the necessary details. On Monday last, that Gentleman and Samuel Warring, Esq., held an inquest on the body, when a verdict of wilful murder was returned against Marks. The ruffian was publicly and most unaccountable at large in Waterford until the woman died, and he was seen last Monday in Clonmel. Happily for ourselves, perhaps we have no space left for commentary. Never in our recollection did so many police murders and outrages occur in the same space of time as during the last three months, but happily the population of the county have been guilty of neither, and notwithstanding the provocation we have recorded above, the inhabitants of Rochestown, always distinguished for their good conduct, offered no insult to the wretches who had brought mourning late their peaceful village.
It is assumed that Thomas Hanrahan and his father-in-law Thomas Power had left the house earlier to travel to a bog to cut peat. From the newspaper account it appears that only Catherine, her mother, and four younger sisters were at home when Catherine was shot by a one-armed pensioner employed as a bailiff.
A little over a month after Catherine Hanrahan died, her killer Thomas Marks was tried on Saturday the 12th of August 1822 in the Kilkenny Assizes for her murder. Unfortunately, there is some confusion among the newspaper accounts as to the outcome of the murder trial. It was reported in one newspaper that he was found guilty of murder (Saunder’s News-Letter, Tues. 20 Aug. 1822, p. 3). Several newspapers reported that Thomas Marks was found guilty of the manslaughter of Catharine Hanrahan and sentenced to six months imprisonment (e.g. Freeman’s Journal, Thurs. 15 Aug. 1822, p. 4; Dublin Weekly Register, Sat. 17 Aug. 1822, p. 3). The Leinster Journal (Sat. 17 Aug. 1822, p. 2) provided further detail regarding the punishment. A verdict of manslaughter was returned and the sentence was “to be burned in the hand and confined six months.”
Unfortunately, no newspaper appears to have covered the murder trial itself, so we do not know why Thomas Marks was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. In the 19th century “malice aforethought” or pre-meditation had to be proven, or was it the case that the jury was swayed by the killer’s disability, age, or occupation? The burning of the killer’s hand raises an interesting point. During the Middle Ages clergy were immune to the civil law and could claim “Benefit of Clergy.” Later “Benefit of Clergy” became a procedural device where laymen could mitigate the harshness of the common law which provided that murders were hanged. To make certain that a layman was not able to claim the benefit more than once his thumb would be burned to mark him. Benefit of Clergy was greatly curtailed when transportation to a colony became a sentencing option and eventually it ended in the early 19th century. It is doubtful that the killer Thomas Marks sought the Benefit of Clergy. It seems more likely that the Judge believed that the jury had exercised mercy and wanted the killer marked to keep him from enjoying further mercy if he killed again.
In attempting to find more information on the killer we came across another man named Thomas Marks sentenced in 1821 to six months imprisonment with hard labour. This sentence of six months with hard labour puts the sentence of six months for killing a pregnant woman, running away from her killer, into perspective. The other Thomas Marks was convicted of stealing “four ducks, four hens and a cock, the property of Mr. Robert Macaulay of Crumlin” (Belfast Commercial Chronicle, Sat. 22 Sept. 1821, p. 4).
Killing No Murder
Perhaps the best clue as to explanation as to why Thomas Marks was convicted of manslaughter may be found on other pages of the Leinster Journal. In addition to the statements made in the article provided above entitled “County Police,”– that in his recollection there were never as many police killings and police outrages as in the previous three months of May, June and July 1822–the editor of the Leinster Journal wrote several other articles concerning the police killings in County Kilkenny. One entitled “Killing No Murder” (Wed. 7 Aug. 1922, p. 2) states,
A correspondent promises to send queries and observation for the consideration of the Grand Jury or Judges of the Assizes, relative to the apparent indifference of the functionaries of Government in the case of an aimable girl, Mary Delaney, who was killed on the spot by the rash and unwarrantable firing of the police on the people assembled at Bawn fair. He also bespeaks our indulgence for a few remarks on the employment of Ralph Deacon as a Peeler at this place where he so recently killed James Aylward, by shooting him through the body, having previously declared, according to the testimony of three witnesses, that he would do something of the kind. He [correspondent] thinks if the services of this man cannot be dispensed with in Ireland, he might be employed in more advantage at a distance from the justly irritated friends and relatives of the deceased.
Lastly, although Griffith’s Tithe Applotment books (1829) records the names of tenants of townlands was performed in 1829 neither Thomas Power nor Thomas Hanrahan are found listed in Rochestown or adjacent townlands.
If anyone has any further information or corrections, please send to glenmore.history@gmail.com.
Special thanks to Bernie Ryan of the Local Studies unit of the Kilkenny Library for her aid and patience as I pursued this very cold case through old newspapers not yet digitalised.
The featured photo of the two pistols is a cigarette card and is courtesy of the New York City Library. George Arents Collection, The New York Public Library. “Pistols.” New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed November 6, 2022. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/5e66b3e8-c668-d471-e040-e00a180654d7
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh
John L. Conn (1812-1893) of Mount Ida, Rochestown, Glenmore [Updated]
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 19th century.
Attempted Burglary of Mount Ida, Glenmore
On Wednesday the 4th 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