Joseph Lynch V.S. New Ross
now browsing by tag
The Prosecution of Glenmore Wedding Guests in 1917
On the 1st of November 1917 the provisions of the Motor Restriction Order came into effect. Britain was engaged in the First World War and the Easter Rising of 1916 was still fresh in the minds of authorities. Twenty-seven days later three persons who drove to a Glenmore wedding were arrested and tried for breaching the Motor Restriction Order of 1917. It is doubtful that when the bride and groom were preparing for their wedding that they had any idea that their wedding would make the news in such a fashion.
Although it was stated in the Order that there was a “need for economy in the use of petrol,” the debates in the House of Commons 7 months earlier, on the 24th of April 1917, revealed that the MP’s were concerned about the number of convictions for driving at excessive speed against drivers going and coming from race meetings. It was noted that a feeling existed in the country against the use of motor cars for purely pleasure purposes at a time of national crisis. The Home Secretary was asked to take immediate steps to prohibit the supply of petrol to owners of motor cars using them for purely pleasure purposes. The Home Secretary responded that the Petrol Control Committee had already ceased issuing licenses for the supply of petrol to private cars not being used for purpose of “national importance.” (HC Deb, 24 April 1917, vol. 92, c. 2223)
The Motor Restriction Order 1917 provided that no petrol or petrol substitute could be used for the purpose of driving any motor vehicle or motor boat except as authorised in the Order within the terms of a motor spirit license issued by the Petrol Control Department of the Board of Trade. Allowed uses included: the conveyance of a person or goods to or from the nearest railway where no other means of conveyance was reasonably available: for the purpose of a profession, trade or business; for necessary household affairs; funerals; and life saving purposes etc.
On the 28th of November 1917 Glenmore Parish Priest, Father Holohan, married Mary Hynes, of Aylwardstown, Glenmore and Edward Whyte, a farmer from Coolnamuck, Inistioge. The best man at the wedding was Thomas Flood and the bridesmaid was Bridget Dreehan. The bride was the daughter of Aylwardstown farmer, Martin Hynes and his wife Anastasia Hynes née Aylward. The bride was born on the 15th of January 1887. The bridegroom was Edward Whyte the son of Thomas Whyte and his wife Catherine Whyte née Meany. The bridegroom was born the 28th of November 1884.
The New Ross Standard reported on Friday the 14th of December 1917 that at the New Ross Petty Sessions three wedding guests were prosecuted for having motor cars at the Whyte-Hynes wedding in Glenmore. The magistrates hearing the cases were Captain D.G. Howlett (presiding) and Arthur J. Doyle and Pat Bolger. The defendants were Joseph Lynch a veterinary surgeon from New Ross, P. A. Jeffares, New Ross, motor and engineering company, Peter Gahan, of Priory-street, of New Ross. All three defendants were represented by Solicitor J.R. Colfer.
Head Constable O’Connell, of Thomastown, prosecuted the cases and Constable Healey, of Glenmore was the arresting officer. Constable Healey testified that on the 28th of November he was on duty at Graiguenakill, Glenmore when he saw Joseph Lynch driving a wedding party from Glenmore Village to Aylwardstown, a distance of about two miles. In Lynch’s car was the bride, bridegroom, best man and bridesmaid. Afterwards he saw Lynch with the car at the house of the bride’s father, Martin Hynes, in Aylwardstown. Constable Healey told Lynch that he had committed an offence. Lynch replied that he was not aware that he had committed an offence. Constable Healey asked for Lynch’s petrol license which Lynch admitted he forgot in another coat. Head Constable O’Connell conceded that prior to the court date Lynch had produced the petrol license. After a lengthy argument concerning the summons being faulty Head Constable O’Connell clarified that the offence was for the defendant “using motor spirit” and asked the magistrates to “inflict a substantial penalty.”
Solicitor Colfer then began a spirited defence arguing that there was no offence. Lynch was a friend of both parties and was an ordinary guest at the wedding. The wedding party hired two motor cars for the wedding, but when they came out of the Glenmore church the hired drivers were not there. The wedding party was standing in front of the church “surrounded by a crowd of beggars wanting gratuities, and the position of the bride and bridegroom and their friends was awkward with this crowd around them.”
Danny Dowling during an interview of Mrs. Alice Power née Curran, of Jamestown, Glenmore recorded the local practice of the “Cee Caw.” School children and beggars would congregate at the Glenmore Church gates at weddings because money would be thrown into the air. When the money was fired into the air it often resulted in abuse and fisticuffs as all the assembled would scramble after the money. This practice continued in Glenmore until the early 1950’s. A review of the Glenmore parish register revealed that there was another wedding held earlier on the 28th of November 1917. John Connolly, a laborer from Rochestown, Glenmore married Bridget Roche of Scartnamore, Glenmore. Thus with two weddings on the same day it is likely there was a large group assembled for the Cee Caw when the Whyte-Hynes wedding party emerged from the church.
Lynch volunteered to drive the wedding party to the Hynes’s home. Solicitor Colfer argued that any reasonable person would have done so including the magistrates. Solicitor Colfer also pointed out that the Order only came out in October, and “a person would want to carry around with him in his car a regular lawyer’s library to try to comply with the regulations.” “Surely the fact of a man taking to himself a wife might reasonably be looked upon as something done in connection with household affairs.”
Solicitor Colfer then drew the magistrates’ attention to a paragraph in the Irish Times on the previous day. The Athlone magistrates had a similar case where a person was charged with violating the Order when he attended a wedding. The Athlone magistrates dismissed the case. Solicitor Colfer also noted a similar case in Bray which also resulted in the magistrates dismissing the case. “In those cases the magistrates had shown common sense in refusing to convict, and refusing to be gulled into turning people into criminals for a breach of those stupid and ill promulgated orders.” With the decisions of two other courts before the New Ross magistrates, he asked the magistrates to exercise common sense and put a reasonable construction on the case. Solicitor Colfer concluded that it would be a disgrace to convict his client, and “under the circumstances of the case the magistrates would be failing in their duty if they did not mark their disapproval of such proceedings by dismissing the case.”
Head Constable O’Connell was not deterred and argued that he had authority that attending a wedding is not a necessary household affair, but upon Solicitor Colfer demanding the legal authority it was not produced. One of the magistrates pointed out to the Head Constable that the Order allowed persons to use petrol to attend funerals. Ultimately the Chairman announced that the case against Defendant Lynch was dismissed on the summons. The Head Constable not taking the hint replied that he would bring the case again on a new summons within a fortnight.
The other cases arising from the same wedding were called and the Chairman said he thought that the best thing to do was to dismiss the other cases. Head Constable O’Connell demanded to know on what grounds the magistrates were dismissing without hearing any evidence. The Chairman replied that the summonses were wrongly stated. The Head Constable O’Connell requested the magistrates to state a case. Solicitor Colfer interjected, “This thing is becoming absurd. You would really think those men were being tried for their lives.”
The Head Constable called Constable Collins, of Glenmore, who testified he was on duty at Graiguenakill on the 28th of November and saw a motor car belonging to the New Ross Motor and Engineering Co., containing 5 ladies driven by the driver. They went in the direction of where the wedding was held. Constable Healy was recalled and gave evidence that on the same date he saw a motor belonging to the New Ross Engineering Co. containing Messrs. John Flood, The Rower; John Hynes, Aylwardstown; Richard Hanrahan, New Ross; and John Meaney, Inistioge. He afterwards saw the car at Mr. Hynes’ house. The explanation the defendants gave was that they didn’t know they were committing an offence. Mr. Colfer said he had very little to say in those eases beyond what he had said in the case of Mr. Lynch. He stated that it was really absurd to accuse people of criminally breaking a law of which they had no knowledge “and it would be a monstrous thing to inflict fines in such cases.”
The Chairman announced that the bench had decided to dismiss the cases. Head Constable asked on what grounds the cases were being dismissed and asked the court to state a case. The magistrates refused to state a case. Undeterred Head Constable O’Connell queried the grounds on which the magistrates refused to state a case. Mr. Bolger, J.P. interjected and reminded the Head Constable that it was not necessary for the magistrates to state their reasons for dismissing the cases. According to the newspaper article the magistrates then dismissed the cases “on the merits” rather than on a defect in the summons, and thereby ensured that the defendants could not be subject to another prosecution from the zealous Head Constable arising from having motor cars at the Whyte-Hynes wedding.
A quick review of newspapers in Britain revealed that in 1917 most of the arrests under the Order reported in the newspapers were for people driving to racing events.
The Irish Petty Sessions Court drawing (c) Illustrated News (1853).
Dr. Kathleen Moore Walsh