Category: Courts Staff

The Divorce of a Deputy Crier, 1885-91

Angry woman yelling at man Ruth Cannon BL barrister
Image via IStock

From the Freeman’s Journal, 10 November 1885:

“PROBATE AND MATRIMONIAL DIVISION

Before the Right Hon Judge Warren, and a Common Jury

CARNEGIE V CARNEGIE – This was a suit by the wife for a divorce a mensa et thoro, on the grounds of cruelty. The petitioner is Phoebe Louisa Carnegie, who carries on business as a milliner and draper at 41 Henry-street, and the respondent, Richard Mackett Carnegie, is deputy crier of the Court of Chancery, verger of St Patrick’s Cathedral, and carries on business as a wholesale basket manufacturer at Bride-Street. The husband denied the cruelty and filed a cross-petition for a judicial separation on the grounds of cruelty.

Mr. McLaughlin, QC; Mr. Cleary, QC and Mr. Hannigan (instructed by Mr. Walsh) were for the petitioner. The Solicitor-General, Dr Houston QC and Mr. HG Kelly (instructed by Mr. HL Kelly) were for the respondent.

From the statement of Mr. McLaughlin QC, it appeared that the petitioner, whose maiden name was Ducros, was married in ’75 to a Mr. Johnston, who died within a year after the marriage, and there were no children. In August 1878, she married the respondent, who was a widower with four children – three sons and a daughter. He had been in the habit of calling at her place of business in Henry-street. They resided together at 18 Longwood Avenue, South Circular Road, and within a year after the marriage the petitioner alleged that her husband struck her and knocked out her teeth. On another occasion she complained that he threw her on a sofa and attempted to strangle her, and that finally, in March last, during her absence from business, he had the furniture removed out of the house, and left her without the necessaries of life.

Longwood Avenue, Portobello, Dublin, Ruth Cannon BL barrister
Longwood Avenue, Portobello, Dublin, today. Image via Haven Homes

The petitioner, Mrs. Carnegie, stated, in reply to Mr. Cleary, that she was married to the respondent in St Mary’s parish church on the 28th of August 1878. In August 1878, while they were living in Longwood Avenue, he struck her on the eye and blackened it, and then ran upstairs to his daughter’s bedroom, where he slept all night. Next day he said he was sorry for it. Within about a year he became very violent to her, and on one occasion he caught her by the throat, threw her on the sofa, and tried to strangle her, and the servant came in and saved her. He called her an opprobrious name for contradicting him. He did not return to her room for several weeks, and on one occasion she did not see him for five months at a time. On a subsequent occasion she was confined to her bedroom for nearly a fortnight suffering from a black eye which he gave her. He also kicked her and marked her legs and arms. In March, during her absence, he removed the furniture and took lodgings in Camden Street. He locked her up and placed men to watch her. He remained away from the house from that date. He left her in charge of a Mr. Elliott to take lodgings for her and look after her. In May last he published a notice in the newspapers cautioning the public against giving her credit, and that he would not be responsible for her debts.

Judge Warren – How long were you locked up?  Nearly four months.

Could you not get out? I could, but I had no place to go. I was locked up to prevent anyone coming into me (laughter)

You could go out whenever you liked? Yes, but I would not be allowed back.

Examination resumed – The notice in the newspapers stopped my credit, and my business is ruined by it. I still have my place in Henry Street. I never struck my husband, and I was never drunk or guilty of any cruelty whatever to him.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General – I never called one of his daughters a ‘hunchback of hell’ but on one occasion in Henry Street he alluded to my sister as a ‘pock-marked girl’ and said she was as good as his hunchback. I never referred to his former wife in opprobrious terms or took up a knife. I raised a small penny ink-bottle off the counter after he pushed me and threw it.

At what? I did not throw it at anything.

At things in general? To frighten him out and he ran out. The ink bottle did not go through the window. I remember being at a picnic at Killiney on one occasion. I did not separate myself from my party and go and join another party and sing for them. 

The witness, in answer to further questions, denied that he ever struck any of her husband’s daughters. She admitted having taken some flowers which he had given her and thrown them on the floor because he had given the best ones to his daughters, but she did not stamp on them.

She got a present of a bunch of flowers on one occasion, and when she came home in the evening from business, she found half of them gone. She found a letter on the mantlepiece next day beginning ‘My darling Richard,’ and thanking him for the flowers and saying ‘You know I always loved you’ (laughter)  She thought the letter had been left there by some of the children to annoy her, but at first she thought it was a letter from a paramour. 

She said on one occasion that she would take the pledge to set an example to her husband. In 1883 the Reverend Mr. Ovenden was called in to try to arrange matters between them. Mr. Ovenden showed her a letter that he was going to send to her husband’s son Willie. Counsel read the letter as follows.

“DEAR WILLIE – Mrs. Carnegie and I have come to a good understanding as to your domestic affairs. She regrets the past, and of her own accord wishes to be a total abstainer. She desires to live in peace and quiet with her husband and to pay due consideration to the children.  I have asked her to report to me any disagreements which may take place, and the cause of them, and she is willing that you should do the same I trust, however that there may be peace in future. Mrs. Carnegie signs this as a token that she has seen and agrees with it.”

The witness denied that she ever broke a door with a hammer or poker, but she remembered having broken the keys of the piano and the Reverend Ovenden ordered her to buy a bottle of gum, and mend one of them. She broke the keys because her husband spoke scandalously of her in the presence of his son. The latter told her that if she opened her mouth, he would call a policeman in, and she said they would have some occasion to do so and broke the keys of the piano (laughter). She also broke a pane of glass in the bookcase, because it was locked and there were some of her books in it. She denied that she was singing the ‘Ballybough bridge Brigade’ while she was smashing the piano. She did not smash tea things, but she broke a small China candlestick which she threw downstairs at William. On one occasion he said that if it were not for her, he could get a woman with £5000. The children never locked their door to protect themselves from her.

She denied that she was ever drunk at an oratorio in Patrick’s Cathedral. At her husband’s suggestion the Henry Street business was vested in trustees for her own use. The son Willie never complained that he was unable to pursue his medical studies owing to her singing and shouting in the house. Bills had been sent to the respondent for goods supplied to her before the publication of the advertisement.

Reexamined by Mr. Cleary – The respondent’s daughters were allowed to manage the house and keep the keys, and that was the cause of all the trouble.

Norah Stanley, a servant, stated that she saw the respondent holding his wife by the throat on the sofa one night. Next morning, she had a black eye. She saw her looking for one of her teeth in the room next morning (laughter) Witness found half a tooth on the floor near the fireplace.

An assistant in the petitioner’s shop in Henry Street stated that on one occasion the respondent came into the shop and called her offensive, and said she was a strange woman. Mrs. Carnegie threw an ink bottle at him which went through the window into the street.

The petitioner’s case having closed, the Solicitor-General stated the case for the respondent. The petitioner, he said, was madly jealous of her husband’s first wife. She was sadly addicted to intemperance, and on several occasions, she appeared in public under the influence of drink. She turned his home into a pandemonium, drove him out of his bedroom on one occasion, and when she was unable to get at him with a poker she smashed the piano, china, and other property downstairs in the drawing room. Ultimately, he endeavored to procure a separation and undertook to provide for her, but she refused to leave and threatened to ruin both him and his family.”

The jury subsequently found that Mr. Carnegie was not guilty of cruelty, but this did not end the litigation. Mrs. Carnegie now filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, opposed by Mrs. Carnegie, which came back before the Probate and Matrimonial Court in May 1886. Mr. Carnegie’s barrister, Dr Houston QC, characterized these proceedings an unfounded and vexatious, calling attention to the evidence given at the hearing of the earlier petition and submitted that this disentitled her to carry her application and that the object was to ruin her husband by litigation.

Mr Justice Warren said, even if Mrs. Carnegie were proved guilty of cruelty such as to entitle her husband to a separation, still he would be bound to make provision for his wife. It would be better for Mr. Carnegie’s own sake that an order for alimony should be made, otherwise he would be liable to have actions brought against him by any shopkeeper who might supply her with necessaries.  Mr. Carnegie said he was wholly unable to pay, as he had been put to such heavy expenses as a consequence of the proceedings that he had not a penny at present and had, in fact, to borrow money. Judge Warren said she could not help that. The case might be a very hard one, but he was bound to decide the matter according to law.

A subsequent argument by Mrs. Carnegie’s lawyers that Mr Carnegie was estopped from relying on the charges of cruelty brought by him against her in the divorce proceedings (he having earlier withdrawn his cross petition for divorce after her divorce petition had been dismissed) was rejected both by Mr Justice Warren and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeal in Ireland. 

At this point, the litigation appears to have settled.

We find Richard Mackett Carnegie again at the Easter ceremonial levee on 16 April 1891, preceding the Lord Chancellor and bearing his mace – something described as ‘a circumstance occurring the first time at these processions.’  Maybe the Lord Chancellor felt sorry for him after all his marital difficulties, or perhaps it was a gesture to his deputy crier’s failing health – Mr Carnegie died in May 1892, after an attack of pneumonia.

Although we may never know whether he reconciled with the fiery Phoebe, the Carnegie divorce proceedings illustrate the comfortable lifestyle enjoyed by a deputy crier of the Irish superior courts – picnics in Killiney, not one but two side hustles, books and china in the cabinet and a drawing-room piano – and also, how quickly such financial security could be eaten away by the costs of litigation!  

A She-Judge, 1830

From the Dublin Morning Register, 5 May 1830:

“COURT OF KING’S BENCH – (A SHE-JUDGE)

At half-past nine o’clock yesterday morning, one of the Court-Keepers’ maids, a plump, arch-looking girl, entered the Court, and ascended the Bench to arrange their Lordships’ inkstands, cushions etc. Having completed all matters of judicial accommodation, she sat down very gravely in the seat usually occupied by Judge Jebb.

A Reporter, who generally labors under the influence of a couple of glasses (spectacles), while mending his pen, threw a glance at the Bench and asked if her Lordship would go into law arguments today.

Her Lordship, gravely – “Not until my brother Judges come into court; they will be here presently, as I just left one of them dressing.”

Reporter – My Lord, will the Court hear motions today.

Her Lordship – I will hear motions in chamber only, here I will also try applications to make conditional rules absolute.

Her Lordship was in the act of leaving the Bench, when the Reporter asked if he would attend her Lordship in Chamber.

Her Lordship, with great quickness and gravity, replied:

‘Before entering into arguments in Chamber, I must first sit in error.”

Her Lordship then retired.“

So many double entendres in this piece – and so much interesting information about 19th century court procedure.

A judge’s chambers were rooms off the court where the judge dressed and undressed, and retired between cases. ‘Dressing’ meant putting on and off legal robes, bands and wigs.

Motions were (and are) applications heard on affidavit to deal with procedural matters such as delivery of pleadings and discovery of documentation, which come up in the course of preparing a case for trial.

Chamber motions referred to applications heard in the judge’s chambers rather than in open court. They were applications requiring no argument, calculated for the dispatch of business, and the indulgence of the suitor in cases of not too special or difficult of nature, which, if not heard in chamber, might never, or not for a long time be heard.

The Irish Rules of Court still provide for some chamber motions today – an example would be Order 20 of the Circuit Court Rules which allows applications in chambers for the production of deeds or the sale of any goods or merchandise the subject of court proceedings of a perishable nature, and therefore desirable to be sold at once.

Motions in error were motions to set aside orders of a court which had been made in error. Unlike chamber motions, motions in error were heard in open court.

The story illustrates the presence of women in the 19th century Four Courts. Although the idea of a woman lawyer, never mind a woman judge, was as yet fantastical, and 19th century Irish ladies, unlike their English counterparts, were not inclined to attend legal proceedings for mere entertainment, there were nonetheless women housekeepers, court-keepers, currant bun and newspaper sellers within the Round Hall, a strong female contingent engaged in the process of transporting barristers’ bags, and even the occasional female lay litigant!

Amazing to think that the interchange above took place where Court 1 is today. The High Court which replaced the old courts of King’s Bench, Common Pleas, Chancery and Exchequer now has many women judges and counting and a President of the same gender sitting just across the Round Hall in Court 4.

Judges still have chambers and sit on the bench but inkstands are no longer present – not sure about cushions! Times change but legal benches can still be hard on the posterior! Perhaps the girl above was sitting in the judge’s seat to test the quality of the cushions?!

I hope she did not get into trouble as a result of this story!

Image Credit

The Misfortunes of Judge Linehan’s Criers, 1913-29

The Old Courthouse, Dungannon, where Mr Ree was locked in in 1913, via Wikimedia Commons.

From the Mid-Ulster Mail, 7 June 1913:

“Mr Robert Ree, County Court Judge Linehan’s crier, met with an unfortunate accident in Dungannon on the afternoon of the 4th.  It seems that the business of the quarter sessions was adjourned early in the afternoon, and the officials hurried off to the Dungannon Agricultural Show, with the result that Mr Ree, after settling up the judge’s papers, found that he was locked inside the courthouse.  There is no interior connection with the caretaker’s apartments beneath the courthouse, but he attracted the attention of passer’s -by, and a ladder was brought and placed against one of the upper windows.  Unfortunately, Mr Ree turned to close the window before descending the ladder, with the result that he overbalanced and fell into the area.  He was promptly removed to the Northland Arms Hotel, and was attended to by Surgeon Marmion, JP.  It was found that his face was much cut and bruised, but fortunately he had escaped more serious injury.”

No better luck attended the judge’s replacement crier, Mr Edward Murphy, who was unfortunate enough to meet his death in Dublin during the Easter Rising of 1916. According to the Mid-Ulster Mail of 13 May 1916, Mr Murphy had been passing through St Stephen’s Green on Easter Tuesday, 9th May, when, opposite the Unionist Club, he waved his hand in salute to an acquaintance at a window.  He was immediately fired at by a rebel sniper and killed.

The Stephen’s Green Hibernian Club, formerly the Unionist Club, Stephen’s Green, Dublin, opposite which Mr Murphy met his death in the Rising of 1916, via Google Maps

On the 10th June, Judge Linehan, in addressing the Tyrone Grand Jury, expressed his satisfaction that the county had been free from the dreadful occurrences which had marked many parts of the country. He referred to the valuable lives lost during Easter Week and particularly that of Mr Murphy, stating that he felt his loss deeply and tendered his sincere sympathy to his widow and family.

Judge Linehan’s next court crier, Robert Fyffe, survived until 1929.  Announcing his death at the Dungannon Quarter Sessions, Judge Linehan said that Mr Fyffe had been with him for a great number of years, and had even made an effort to come with him to Dungannon, but had been too unwell to do so.  He was sure that the court would join with him in deploring his death and sending sympathy to his daughters.

Tyrone County Court Judge Linehan KC

Judge Linehan himself died in 1935. Tributes at Castlederg Petty Sessions Court following his death described him as one of the most courteous, efficient, and conscientious judges that had ever presided at a court in County Tyrone.  Mr VP McMullin, solicitor, on behalf of the legal profession praised his wonderful courtesy and assistance and said that as an advocate at the Bar he had had a brilliant career, but his brilliancy at the bar was easily outshone by his brilliancy on the bench. 

An obituary in the Portadown Times described Judge Linehan as a native of Cork who practised in Dublin, acted as a judge in Northern Ireland, and lived in England,  noting that although almost all the old County Court judges in the Irish Free State had been dismissed, most of the current Northern Irish Bench had been appointed prior to 1919. The obituary drew attention to the fact that, like a number of other members of the bench, Judge Linehan had commenced his career as a newspaper reporter and said that there was no doubt that his early journalistic experience had given him a wide insight into human nature which he had turned into account as a judge.

All Irish judges survived the 1916 Rising, although there were concerns at one point that Mr Justice Barton might have been detained by rebels in the Four Courts, and Mr Justice Johnson’s house in Lansdowne Road was occupied by rebel troops.

The most famous legal deceased of 1916 was of course Patrick Pearse, leader of the Rising, described alternately as ‘a nominal barrister’ and ‘a barrister without briefs’ in contemporaneous accounts. The legal profession, it seemed, was somewhat anxious to disassociate itself from him – and indeed from any of its other members who had participated in the Rising – described by one newspaper as ‘Sinn Fein ornaments.’ Now Pearse’s image hangs proudly a stone’s throw from the Law Library in the Four Courts. Times change!

Tragedy and disapproval aside, the Irish legal profession appeared to have enjoyed the drama of the Rising with gripping accounts by John Cusack BL and solicitor James D Caruth appearing in the press. The restrictions on movement imposed by both sides led to some interesting interaction between certain senior lawyers – not used to being in a position of being ordered about – and both Rebel and British troops.  More to come!

Lord Chancellor’s Mace-Bearer Fined for Assaulting Dublin United Tramways Conductor, 1902

From the Irish News and Belfast Morning News, 1 July 1902:

“SCENE IN A TRAMCAR

Today in the Southern Police Court, before Mr Wall KC, a respectable-looking elderly man named Matthew Orr, a crier in the Four Courts, was brought up in custody of Constable 46B, charged at the instance of Patrick Reddy, a conductor in the employment of the Dublin United Tramways Company, with having been guilty of disorderly behaviour by catching Reddy by the corner of the coat, shaking him, and striking him on the left jaw with his clenched fist, also refusing to pay his fare of one penny, and refusing to tell his name and address to the conductor, and further with endangering his life by running through the front door of the car and jumping from the platform onto the guard-shafts, the car being then in motion.  There was a second charge preferred by the constable of refusing his name when asked for it in Westmoreland Street, and also with assaulting him by catching him by the collar of the tunic and endeavouring to knock him down, and violently resisting arrest.

Mr Gerald Byrne prosecuted on behalf of the Tramway Company, and the accused was defended by Mr RF Todd (instructed by Mr Wm McCune).

When the defendant entered the dock, Mr Wall asked – What is this man? I know his face very well.

Mr Todd – He is the crier of the Court of Chancery.

Patrick Reddy, 6 Brighton Avenue, deposed that he was conductor of a tramcar coming between Rathfarnham and Drumcondra, which was proceeding northwards towards the latter place between four and five o’clock on Saturday evening.  Accused got on the tram at Leonard’s Corner at Clanbrassil Street and paid a penny fare.  The stage began at Harold’s Cross Bridge and ended at the Grattan Statue, College Green.  Witness on reaching the latter place told him that the stage was ended.

Mr Byrne – What did he say? He told me I did not know where he got on the car.  I told him I knew very well where he got on, and that in any case the penny fare was up.

Witness, continuing, said the car went on towards Westmoreland Street, and he asked Orr for an extra fare.  He said he would pay no more.  Witness demanded his fare three times altogether.

After further evidence the accused, acting on his counsel’s advices, apologised, and Mr Wall said that settled the case from the tramway point of view.  In regards to the police charges he would impose a fine of 10s.”

Mr Orr was a person of considerable importance in the Four Courts, being responsible for looking after the massive silver mace with ancient Irish ornament which had been part of the insignia of the Lord High Chancellorship since that office was first established.  Always displayed prominently on the left side of the court during the presence of the Lord Chancellor, the mace was carried before him by his crier as he moved from court to court.   

Stolen during the occupation of the Four Courts in 1922, the mace was subsequently recovered under the floorboards of Arran Quay.  The Weekly Irish Times of 15th July, 1922, ran a piece dealing with its recovery, which included (above) a late 19th century photograph of Mr Orr holding the mace.  It looks rather imposing, and with some sharp edges. Just as well its bearer was off-duty during his altercation with Mr Reddy – or he might have done a lot more damage!

The transition from a position of authority at work to mere everyday customer outside can be difficult! But Four Courts tipstaffs could sometimes be over-zealous even in the pursuit of their official duties. Read about another criminal case from the mid-19th century involving a Mr Falkner here.

Was Mr Orr a relation of David Orr, the Four Courts plumber involved in a gas explosion in the Bankruptcy Court in 1888? It would be interesting to know!

Tragic Tipstaff Death in Phoenix Park, 1905

The Phoenix Park

From the Irish News and Belfast Morning News, 9 June 1905, this sad account of the death of Mr Robert Pierson, tipstaff/crier to the Recorder of Dublin:

“Yesterday at the Dublin City Commission, before the Lord Chief Justice and a jury, James Doolan, publican, Watling Street, was charged with the manslaughter of Robert Pierson, who had for some years being crier in the Recorder’s Court.Mr Seymour Bushe KC prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr TM Healy KC defended.The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Mr Bushe, in opening the case for the Crown, said that the prisoner was charged with having led to the death of Pierson on the 7th March by his negligence in driving a trap through the Phoenix Park. Between seven and eight o’clock Pierson was proceeding on bicycle up the main road of the Phoenix Park. There were other men in the defendant’s cart, and they had been out enjoying themselves that day. They were at Lucan, the Strawberry Beds and Knockmaroon. They had refreshments at most or all of these places. At 7 o’clock they left Doyle’s, of Knockmaroon and drove towards Parkgate Street. As the cart drove down the park it was not on its right side. If it had been, it would not have interfered with the bicycle.

After further evidence, the Lord Chief Justice asked what position in life the prisoner was in. Mr Healy said the prisoner had not much money, and was absolutely ignorant of what had occurred. The members of the Bar who knew the deceased had subscribed to a fund for Pierson’s family. The prisoner would be prepared to pay £50 towards the fund.

His Lordship suggested £100. He thought it was a weak case as regards criminal negligence, but there was such a thing as civil negligence. Mr Healy sad they would be prepared to pay £75 if the present and future proceedings would be stopped. The Recorder had become treasurer to the fund. The Lord Chief Justice said that the Recorder was always at the head of anything charitable.A nolle prosequi was then entered, and the prisoner was discharged.”

The Recorder himself described Mr Pierson as a most admirable and efficient officer of his court, only expressing regret that he had had no light on his bicycle given the amount of times he must have heard cycling without lights being criticised in court.

Mr Pierson had five children, and the monies raised by the Pierson Family Fund enabled them to travel with their mother to New York to live with relatives. They had already left by the date of the manslaughter hearing above. Hopefully the additional £100 received assisted them in making a new start on the other side of the Atlantic.