Images

A Pleading Two-Step, Part 1: The Dangers of Dispensing With Counsel, 1866

From the Evening Freeman, 28 July 1866 and the Cork Constitution, 30 July 1866:

“Mr Hardy applied to have the defence filed in the case of Tedcastle v Stockholme set aside on the ground that it was informal and embarrassing.

Mr O’Driscoll said he held a brief for the defendant, but he would save much trouble by stating that the defence was not maintainable.  It was framed in the old style and pleaded the general issues.

Mr Justice Keogh – Who prepared it?

Mr O’Driscoll – It was drawn by a barrister, the only one in town at the time.  He is a member of the Bar, but I have never seen him.

Mr Hardy – I have never seen him either, although he was called to the Bar in 1834.  He seems to have been asleep since. (laughter)

Mr Justice Keogh – Who is the attorney?

Mr O’Driscoll – Mr Geary.

Mr Justice Keogh – Is Mr Geary here?

Mr O’Driscoll – He is not, but his son is.

In reply to the learned judge, a little boy stated that his father, Mr Geary, was at the Head-Police-Office.  After a lapse of about half an hour, and when the business of the court was about to conclude, Mr Geary was called, and did not answer.

Mr Driscoll – I suppose Mr Geary will be here yet.

Mr Hardy – I do not think he will. (laughter)

Mr O’Driscoll – That is a very pert observation.  He is labouring from physical infirmity and I believe he is a very respectable man.  I do not think any gentleman at the Bar should make such an observation.

Mr Justice Keogh – I do not like to say anything about it, but I concur with Mr Hardy. I require an express affidavit from the gentleman at the Bar who signed that defence, and an affidavit from Mr Geary himself, if necessary.  It has been sought to suppress all discussion by declaring that the thing was indefensible.

Mr O’Driscoll – I did not intend to do so.  I had no object in doing so.  

Mr Justice Keogh – There is an old French maxim ‘Qui s’excuse s’accuse.’

Mr O’Driscoll – Your lordship used a hard expression.

Mr Justice Keogh – I deliberately used that expression.”

The matter resumed the following Tuesday, when the court was furnished with an Affidavit from Mr Thomas Barrington Geary, of no 22 Peter Street, stating that he had drafted a defence, and taken it to the residence of Mr Curran BL for approval, only to be told that Mr Curran was at the Tullamore Assizes, and that, although the defence could be sent down to him there, it would take two days for it to be signed and returned.  As the defence had to be in the following day, Mr Geary then recollected Mr Thomas W Reilly, a member of the Bar whom he had known for many years and who, after having been paid the proper and usual fee, signed the defence in his presence.  

Also read out in court was a letter from Mr Reilly:

“DEAR GEARY I need not say how much concerned I was upon reading the Irish Times of Saturday last, to perceive that the draft defence to which I attached my signature had been the subject of such serious animadversion.  I can only remark that if I made an error in the pleading it was an inadvertence that, perhaps, might occur to any other barrister.  All I can say is, that, considering your long experience, I did not very attentively examine the draft and felt myself perfectly secure in putting my name to it when you brought it to me, accompanied by the usual fee which you paid me on the 19th inst, the day on which you signed the defence.  I hope this letter will answer the purpose.”

Judge Keogh said that the fact that Mr Reilly was not known at the bar as a practising barrister had caused him to fear that a name had been put to the defence without Counsel signing it.  His only anxiety in the matter was the the legitimate rights of the Bar should be respected.  It would appear that Mr Reilly put his name to the pleadings without judging himself of their contents.  It was to be regretted that any professional gentleman would make himself the instrument of an attorney by attaching his name to a document without taking the proper pains to see if it were correct.  Mr Reilly’s letter contained an admission that he had acted in a most improper manner, and he was sure it would be condemned by every member of the Bar in far stronger terms than he had just used.

The question of defences unsigned by Counsel had been troubling Irish courts generally for some years.  It was a requirement of General Rule 33d that all pleadings subsequent to summons and plaint be so signed, the fee on taxation, for advising and preparing on such pleadings, to be not less than one guinea. 

Purportedly developed to prevent defences being filed purely for the purposes of delay, the rule was strictly enforced by the judiciary, former barristers themselves, with an eye to preventing any abrogation of the Bar’s privileges.   A defence filed without Counsel’s signature would be struck out, and a solicitor who signed Counsel’s name on their behalf – even if out of town – could expect to be heavily censured.

In 1862, the Court of Common Pleas took it on itself to inquire as to the purported signature of Mr Tuckey, a conveyancing and chamber barrister in Cork, on a defence described by Chief Justice Monahan as ‘such an extraordinary attempt at pleading that it is doubtful any member of the Bar ever prepared it.’  In response, Mr Robert Martin, solicitor, admitted that Mr Tuckey had not signed the defence, but said that he had, in other cases, given him authority to put his name to pleadings if he could not get to Dublin in time to sign them, something which was denied by Mr Tuckey.  

Mr Martin received a fine of £15, and a severe dressing down from the Chief Justice, who remarked that the case would of course have been much more serious if the court had been of the opinion that there had been an understanding between the two men that Mr Martin would be at liberty to place the name of Mr Tuckey to documents of this kind.

The requirement that Counsel’s signature appear on the defence was removed by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, which must have resulted in a drying-up of income for any non-practising barristers ready willing and able to append their names for a guinea.  Mr Reilly’s embarrassing fate must have served as a reminder to all members of the Bar to read any solicitor-drafted pleadings carefully before signing – and to keep up to date with professional developments!

Image Credits: (top) (middle)

The Brats of Mountrath Street, 1867-1890

From the Freeman’s Journal, 27 May 1867:

“CHANCERY PLACE AND MOUNTRATH STREET

Dear Sir-

I beg, through the medium of your influential journal, to call the attention of the authorities to an assemblage of ill-behaved boys and girls that meet nightly at the corner of the above mentioned localities, throwing stones and making use of the most obscene language to passers-by.  Whilst passing through Chancery-place from my business the other evening I was struck with a stone and cut severely.  It is really too bad that the public should be obliged to raise their voice in the matter.  If the police on this beat were a little more vigilant this annoyance would soon be squelched.  I remain, dear Sir, yours gratefully.

AN OBSERVER.”

And again in the Freeman’s Journal, 5 June 1890:

“REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT

SIR –  I wish to bring before your readers what happened to myself and one of my brother clergymen on Sunday week evening when returning from service.  We met a number of children, between 20 and 30, aged from 5 to 12 (about).  The moment we came past them the elder boys sang the most disgusting song about us, evidently prepared beforehand, several of the girls joining in. When passing Mountrath Street, stones were thrown with great force.  We had just crossed to the other side.  By your kindly giving publicity to this letter you may be the means of circumventing a repetition of this conduct. – Yours faithfully

T Long

Rector of St Michans.“

Though written two decades apart, the theme and content of both letters is surprisingly similar, suggesting a long and proud tradition on the part of local children of verbal (and sometimes, even physical) assaults on daytime interlopers.  With deprivation in the once prosperous surrounding area reaching its peak in the second half of the 19th century the contrast between the lives of these children and those working – as opposed to residing – there must have been very stark. Not that this made things any easier for those who – like Reverend Long and most of the Four Courts – had to pass along Chancery Street on a daily basis.

Chancery Street is referred to by its old name of Pill Lane on the 19th century map below, and you can see Mountrath Street (later incorporated into the Four Courts complex and Chancery Place) south-east of it on the map. Though not marked on the map, the Reverend Long’s church, St Michan’s, would have been located just north of the opposite end of Pill Lane.

A generation later, things had moved on, with proper housing, designed by Dublin Corporation Housing Architect, Herbert Simms, now available for local residents. By September 12, 1935, the Irish Independent was able to excitedly report that a miniature park beside the new Chancery Place flats was due to be finished in about three months, with a number of workmen already engaged in laying out a flowerbed faced by a dressed stone wall of octagonal design and surrounded by a pathway of crazy paving. An ornamental stork which had previously graced an old rockery on the site was intended to be placed at the centre of the flowerbed to create a charming vista completed by trees, ornamental shrubs and a spacious lawn.

The location of this Eden? Just opposite the corner previously occupied by the feral subjects of this post. Perhaps the author of the article even had them in mind when penning the following ending:

“It is to be hoped that the public generally, and children in particular, will show their appreciation of the Corporation’s efforts towards transforming the grounds into a park and will do nothing to despoil it.”

A beautifully cared for Chancery Park remains in place to this day – a wonderful symbol of Dublin progress and testament to the work of the Corporation and Mr Simms. Why not take a closer look at its water feature here to see if that stork is still about?

Image Credits (top)(middle)(bottom)

The Man of Many Wives, 1884-1895

From the Illustrated London News, 14 June 1884:

“At the Dublin Commission Court, before Mr Justice Lawson, on Saturday, Brian Denis Molloy, son of a magistrate for the County of Mayo, and who, on the death of his father, will become entitled to £1000 per annum, was indicted for bigamy.  The prisoner has married five times, the last person with whom he went through the ceremony being his own first cousin, a lady of about forty, Miss Robertina Greene, who has an income in her own right of £400 per annum.  The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

 Mr Curtis, for the defence, said he would be able to shorten the case. Substantially their defence was that the prisoner was insane.  Dr Banks was examined, and deposed that he had been physician to the prisoner’s family for a number of years; with regard to the accused he said that at one time he was labouring under symptoms of insanity, and had been placed in a private lunatic asylum.  He also understood that he had been confined in two lunatic asylums in Bruges, and that he escaped from one recently.

Mr Curtis: Do you think he is capable of discerning right from wrong?

Witness: Certainly not as regards his matrimonial alliances (laughter).

Serjeant O’Brien (for the prosecution) I never heard of a more captivating character (Laughter) No less than four ladies have succumbed to his winning influence.

Here, Miss Greene, who had been intently reading the newspaper during the proceedings, looked up and smiled, whilst another of the ladies, Miss Cassidy, laughed aloud.

Mr Justice Lawson: There is no accounting for taste (Laughter)

Serjeant O’Brien: You know, my lord, when men are afflicted, women are the ministering angels.

The prisoner was found guilty of the charge alleged, and on the verdict being entered the jury found that the prisoner was insane at the time he went through the ceremony of marriage.   He was then ordered to be detained in an asylum during the pleasure of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant.

When leaving the dock Molloy, who himself looked the picture of misery, smiled to each of the women.”

Mr Molloy was liberated from the asylum after two years on the petition of his magistrate father, who undertook to be his surety for good behaviour.  The following year, in London, he married yet again – to Emma Jane Moreton, half his age –  without having divorced his first wife.   On discovery of the true situation, Miss Moreton, less understanding than her predecessors, reported her new husband to Scotland Yard.  

Another bigamy prosecution resulted, and this time Mr Molloy was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment; indeed, he was lucky not to get more, as the court does not seem to have been made aware of his previous conviction in Ireland, or the fact that the complainant was in fact his sixth concurrent spouse (she was reported as being his third).  The first Mrs Molloy finally brought her divorce action in 1895, to which her errant husband consented, and was awarded £8 a month alimony.

What to think of Mr Molloy – a reprehensible bounder or just one of many sent to asylums by families for daring to flout social convention?   At least as far as his Irish ‘wives’ went, perhaps, as the Glasgow Evening Post remarked, his only fault was that he loved too well!  And could the above series of events mean that the record for the most wives ever – outside Utah at least – belongs to an Irish magistrate’s son?

Image Credit

The Bar Cricket Club in Season, 1889-1890

From the Clonmel Chronicle, 10 July 1880:

“The members of the Bar of Ireland sometimes unbend the legal mind in the soft excitement of lawn tennis; but when they do, the learned gentlemen have their little frolic in ‘chamber’ as it were, and not in court.  They had what is called a ‘Lawn Tennis Tournament’ recently on the Earlsfort Terrace Rink, and a member of the Press went up to tell the public how it went on and off, but the notetaking chiel wasn’t admitted.  He says that as he stood at the door, he saw an eminent and amiable judge doing wonders with the ball, and that the learned lot were shouting and tumbling about like so many schoolboys, which shows that they were enjoying themselves.  There is no truth in the statement that wigs and gowns were worn on the occasion.  It is said that there is in full swing a Bar Bicycle Club.  I doubt it; but this is a wonderfully professional age, and I don’t suppose there is any reason why, so far as the Bar is concerned, the line should be arbitrarily drawn at bicycling.”

Any tennis and cycling clubs subsequently established had the good sense to keep their activities out of the papers, but the Bar of Ireland Cricket Club enjoyed a brief flurry of publicity in the closing decades of the 19th century before golf became the favoured sport of off-duty barristers. From the start, the Bar Cricket Club played at the Vice Regal Grounds in the Phoenix Park and their very first reported match – against the Vice Regal Club – took place here in May 1872 as the opening match of the 1872 season.  Another match, against the Army this time, is reported as having taken place in June 1885 at the Garrison Ground.

But it was a series of matches against a Vice Regal Lodge team in 1889 and 1890 that really brought the Bar Cricket Club to public prominence. The first of these matches, which took place in beautifully fine weather on 14 May 1889, in the grounds of the Vice Regal Lodge (now Aras an Uachtarain) was graced by the presence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the then Lord Lieutenant Lord Londonderry (who went out to bat), the band of the West Surrey Regiment and a large concourse of spectators on horse and foot.  According to the Dublin Daily Express, the weather was splendid, the assemblage and surroundings of a very striking character and very seldom had a larger gathering been seen at any cricket match on a Saturday afternoon.

Not only did the ladies attend in great numbers but the attendance of members of the Bar was of such a character as to lead one to believe that the interest felt in the match was universal amongst the wearers of the wig and gown. In contrast to the other amenities, the play was merely of a fairly good character but, as the Express kindly pointed out, allowances had to be made on all sides for the early period in the season at which the match took place.  The result was Vice Regal 103, Bar 94.

The return match, which took place on the Vice Regal Ground on Sunday 19th May 1889, was described by Irish Society, Dublin as a red-letter day with everything combining to make it an enormous success, beauty again gracing the field in the form of a large female attendance, and with the weather of a most delightful character for the votaries of the willow.  Judges attended too, on horse and foot, Judge Webb riding up on what was described as ‘a serviceable cob’ and soon-to-be-deceased Lord Justice Naish driving up in a hack which he optimistically discharged in order to walk home alone.

Although the idea initially prevailed that the Bar would turn the tables on their conquerors at the second time of asking, this second match offered practical demonstration that the previous win of the home team was by no means a fluke, with the overall result being a chastening Bar 127, Vice Regal 185.  According to Irish Society, the only regret expressed was that these matches were not more frequent, possibly because business was so brisk amongst the members of the Junior Bar that they could not afford the time, but perhaps something might be done during the Long Vacation.

Something was indeed done during the Long Vacation, with a third match taking place on 17 August 1889 in the grounds of the Vice Regal Lodge.  According to the Dublin Daily Express, both sides were represented by strong teams with Lord Londonderry again occupying his usual position in the field at slip.  There was a slight shower in the forenoon but the sun prevailed in the afternoon, when the attendance became numerous and the band of the Seaforth Highlanders attended and played a selection of music.  Thankfully, the Bar Cricket Club redeemed its honour by winning on this occasion; though details of the score are not available, its ultimate victory over Vice Regal was described as a stout thrashing.

The next year’s match against Vice Regal in May 1890 was a two-day affair, and according to the Freeman’s Journal, a trial of skill in real earnest.  Once again, the weather was beautiful, with the Dublin Daily Express describing the Lodge gardens, where the match again took place, as a charming glade evidencing the tenderest tons of green relieved by the whiteness of May blossoms bursting into life and fragrance.  The former Attorney-General, Peter O’Brien, who had organised the matches the previous year, was now Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and, though he did not play, was described as ‘generalling his team in the most masterly and fatherly fashion, putting them up to some tips of wily procedure which doubtless contributed greatly to their success.’

Unfortunately, an immense rainfall during the past fortnight meant that the ground was damp and somewhat elastic, the great heat of the day did not aid the players either in scoring or taking wickets. Though the first match was won by the Vice Regal, the barristers stormed to victory in the second day’s contest. By this time, Lord Londonderry had been replaced as Lord Lieutenant by Lord Zetland, who – despite gamely travelling up from his Kilmurry fishing lodge, bat in tow, to play for the Vice Regal team – may not have had quite the same level of interest in the event as his cricket-loving predecessor!  

Perhaps because of this administrative change, or indeed because members of the Bar had had quite enough of taking direction from the Lord Chief Justice in their leisure hours, there were to be no more big cricket events to compare in any way with those of the 1889-90 seasons. We can only be grateful that the above reports of joyous play in glorious weather beneath the trees of the Phoenix Park survive to give us a brief window into the all-too-limited leisure hours of busy 19th century barristers – and a sense of the newsworthiness of any activity of the Bar and Bench, no matter how slight, in an era in which the Four Courts and the quasi-independent legal system operating out of it stood almost alone as one of the few remaining symbols of distinct and separate Irish identity!

Image Credit

Boys’ Night In Ends in Three Months’ Hard Labour for Elderly Barrister, 1892

From the Derry Journal, 8 June 1892:

“At the Petty Sessions, Nenagh, Mr Sadleir Stoney, Barrister at Law and Justice of the Peace for Dublin, who resides at Ballycapple, between Nenagh and Cloughjordan, surrendered to heavy recognisances and was charged with having assaulted Mrs Alice Bunbury, wife of Captain Bunbury, in her own house at Woodville, about a mile and a half from the defendant’s residence.

Mr Stoney conducted his own defence.

Mrs Bunbury was examined.  She said she was visiting a lady friend on the evening in question, when Mr Stoney went to her house; she had previously objected to his going to the house. ‘I knocked at the door of the parlour,’ she continued, ‘where he was with my husband, but I would not be let in. I asked why he dared to keep me out of my parlour, and Mr Stoney said I would not be let in; that the parlour did not belong to me.  I took a hatchet to break in the door, and he opened it, struck me on the face, and knocked me down.  He took the hatchet and struck me with it, and was going to strike me a second time, when one of my servants snatched it from him.  He gave me several kicks; the servant went out and when he came Mr Stoney had me by the hair of the head, and was flogging me with a whip, and the servant and myself fled downstairs; we locked the door; in about five minutes time we heard screams, and on going up to the nursery, I found him following the nurse round the table threatening to kill her; when he was going away he said ‘I will get plenty of help, and I will kill you all.’

The magistrates retired to consider and returned after half an hour, when they sentenced the defendant to three months hard labour in Limerick Jail, sureties to keep the peace being required at the end of this period.”

An appeal by Mr Stoney to the Nenagh Quarter Sessions a few days later was unsuccessful. The County Court Judge affirmed the conviction, saying that he was aware that Mr Stoney was an old and delicate man and that imprisonment would be very hard upon him but if there was any danger to his health an appeal could be made to remit the sentence. It seems that his prison term did not finish off the redoubtable Mr Stoney, who died in 1899, aged 76.

Some additional detail about Captain and Mrs Bunbury can be found on the wonderful history website of their family member Turtle Bunbury, author of many history books including the great recent publication, ‘Ireland’s Forgotten Past: A History of the Overlooked and Disremembered.’ The Captain, a childhood friend of Mr Stoney, had recently taken the 26-year-old Mrs Bunbury (née Stone, daughter of a Dublin solicitor) as his much younger second wife. Presumably Mrs Bunbury, with all the confidence of youth, had embarked on a campaign of getting her new husband to change his old habits!

Few boys’ nights in end in such unmitigated disaster!

Image Credit