Reminiscences of John Adye Curran, K. C., late county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions;

Preface

A mot unfrequent fashion with compilers of " Reminiscences " is to make their preludial bow with an apology or form of justification. In sending forth this volume I shall not take the trouble to apologize or to justify. In the great adventure of life it is given to some men to play a little part in one or more of these incidents which mark the progress of a nation. The ever- increasing sum of such incidents when placed by the historian in the right perspective is called history. For me the investigation into the aims and deeds of the hideous Invincible Conspiracy which culminated in the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Thomas Henry Burke, on May 6, 1882, has been such an event. In the thirty-two years which have elapsed, not one of the many who have endeavoured to tell that bloody story has succeeded either in a correct statement of the facts or the proper appraisement of the motives of the assassins. Having regard to my judicial position, I have been hitherto unable to contradict the various false

vii viii PREFACE

and incorrect accounts of what took place at the investigation held by me. And so it has occurred to me that the " Head Inquisitor of Dublin Castle," as I have been called, should employ his leisure hours in writing a true account of that dark chapter in Ireland's history. Such a gruesome tale requires relief. In Ireland, to an even greater extent than in the sister isle, the profession of the law brings its votaries into close touch with men and affairs. During a busy and, thank God, a long and happy life, I have met many of the outstanding personalities of Irish history, and I have endeavoured "to save and recover from the deluge of time " some stories and recollections of those men who have passed into the shadows, and of the little customs and institutions — for instance, the Old Home Circuit — which with them have also

faded- J. A. C.

September, 1915.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE DAYS - - 1 II. EARLY DAYS AT THE BAR— HINTS TO YOUNG

BARRISTERS ----- 8

Chapter I Boyhood And College Days

I trust it will not be ascribed either to presumption or vanity in me when I say that I hope and expect the contents of the following pages — some personal, some political, and covering, as they do, a period of over three-quarters of a century — may prove of interest to the public in general and to my professional brethren in particular.

In writing these reminiscences it is only right that I should in the first instance refer to my father, the late John Adye Curran, a barrister well known in Dublin and on the Home Circuit, to whom I owe so much. Having previously graduated in Trinity College, Dublin, he was called to the Bar in the year 1833. His call had been delayed by the Benchers for some time in consequence of a speech made by him during the Tithe Agitation, with the result that he had been tried at the Commission in Green Street Court-house, and sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment. He informed me that it was the late Baron Green who finally induced the Benchers to waive their objection.

My father was a very able criminal lawyer and defender of prisoners. He was engaged in all the cases of any note on circuit and in Dublin, from the date of his call in 1833 to that of his death in 1868. He was married in the year 1834. My mother was an English lady named Dolman, whose family came from Pocklington, Yorkshire. Her ancestors founded the Grammar School which still exists in that town, and is known as the " Dolman Grammar School." Her brother was the late Dr. John Thomas Dolman, formerly of York and afterwards of Souldern Aynho, Oxfordshire.

At the time of my birth in the year 1837, my father lived in what was then 68, Marlborough Street, but the number of the house has since been altered. That street was at that period the abode of young professional men, and my father bought the interest in the house from Dr. McKeever, who migrated to Cavendish Bow. At the age of seven I went with my father to Paris to meet my mother, who had been wintering in the south of France, where she had gone for the benefit of her health. On our return we moved to 22, Lower Dominick Street, which street was then inhabited principally by leading barristers and solicitors.

Becollections of even very distinguished men

BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE DAYS 3

before the age of seven — the age under which even the law imputes impotency of crime — are rarely of interest, and are too often open to the suspicion that the recollection is of the nurse, and not the child. There are two events, however, of early childhood that are still green. As a prelude to a volume of stories of a stormy career, it is perhaps fitting that the great storm of 1839 should be the first milestone in my memory. During that terrible night a stack of chimneys was blown down through the skylight of our house, and I remember being brought for safety to pass the remainder of the night in the kitchen.

Till the day of his death I was the constant companion of my father, and one day, whilst still very young, I was walking with him in Great Britain Street, when we met a big man, enveloped in a cloak. He spoke to my father for a few moments and shook hands with me. When he had passed on, my father told me it was Daniel O'Connell. The momentary contact of a mere child with the great could not have the slightest degree of influence, but, nevertheless, while those who have even seen the great Liberator are growing fewer and fewer, it is a satisfaction to have held the hand of one who won so much for his country.

My first schooling was under a Dr. O 'Toole, in York Street, Kingstown, but only for a short time. I then went to the Jesuits in Belvidere College, and afterwards for nearly four years to a school in Boulogne, at the head of which was Monseigneur Haffreingue. It was through the exertions of this clergyman that the splendid church and tower of Notre Dame in that town was built. I returned home in the year 1853, and was sent to the school in Harcourt Street, kept by Dr. James Quin, afterwards Bishop of Queensland, in Australia. I had there for masters, Dr. Matthew Quin, afterwards Bishop of Maitland, in Australia ; Dr. Flannery, late Bishop of Killaloe ; and the Most Rev. Dr. Robert Dunne, present Archbishop of Brisbane ; and also the late Bishop Murray. As schoolfellows I had Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick, afterwards Lieut. -Governor of Punjab, General Sir Willian Butler, and his brother Thomas, who in after years, as resident magistrate, assisted me in my duties in the county Kerry. I had also for my schoolmates Dr. More Madden, Canon Conlan, and the Venerable Archdeacon Fricker, P.P., and many others distinguished in various walks of life. Some of them are still with us, but most have gone over to the great majority. In later years Dr. Walsh, Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and my friend the Bight Rev. Monsignor Fitzpatrick, P.P., V.G., brother of Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick, were also students in the same school.

I passed in the year 1855 from Dr. Quin's school to Trinity College. My father preferred I should go to that ancient seat of learning than to the

BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE DAYS 5

Catholic University, which had just been opened, as I thereby saved two years in my course for the Bar. The Rev. Hewitt R. Poole was my tutor, a most kindly gentleman and cultured scholar. I remember one day chatting with him just inside the College gates, when two students passed. " Do you see those two young men ?" he said to me. " Mark my words, they will yet make their mark in Irish history." He was prophetic : one was Edward Gibson, afterwards Lord Ashbourne, a Cabinet Minister and Lord Chancellor ; the other was Gerald Fitzgibbon, afterwards Lord Justice of Appeal.

I never saw my tutor after I had left college until one day shortly before his death, when I was sitting opposite to him in a tram-car. I spoke to him ; he, of course, did not recognize me until I mentioned my name, when he seemed delighted to meet me. He said he had watched my career from the day I left his care. It was a great pleasure to me that I was afterwards in a position to appoint his son, Mr. H. R. Poole, a rising barrister, as my counsel in the Midland Counties. I am sorry it was not a more lucrative post.

At such a great length of time I cannot remember many details of my college life. I suppose I was a very average student. It has been said that in those times a Catholic student in Trinity College ran the risk of losing his faith. Such was not my experience, as during my four years'

stay in that University not a word was ever spoken to me by the College authorities on the subject. But, from my point of view as. a Catholic, I consider it very wrong that I was not taught my religion by a professor of my faith.

A boy of sixteen to eighteen years is just of the age that requires to be looked after and kept up to the practices of his religion, especially if he is not resident with his family. Catholics in Trinity College never heard their religion or its practices mentioned, while all my brother Protestant students were much better looked after in this respect, and were awarded valuable premiums for efficiency in their religious studies. Nowadays much less interest is taken in the religious side of the education of the great Universities, so, with a sigh for these other tempora et mores, I shall pass on to the story of a mark on the top of my head, which has been my constant companion since college days.

On the occasion of the second entry of the Earl of Eglinton as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in the year 1858, the students of Trinity College had to be confined within the space bounded by the front railings. Outside the place was guarded by a number of Metropolitan Police and mounted men. The students who lined the inside of the railings caused much confusion among the men and horses by bombarding them with crackers, which, when exploding, rendered the horses quite unmanageable.

BOYHOOD AND COLLEGE DAYS 7

Matters became so bad that the gates had to be flung open and the police ordered to charge with their batons.

I was standing some distance inside the gate looking on, when I felt myself taken possession of by three or four constables. They happened to know me from seeing me with my father, and they put me outside the gate and told me to go home. I took their advice, and was proceeding along the outside of the rails, when, glancing in, I saw a young friend knocked down and left lying on the ground. Intending to go to his assistance, I climbed back over the rails, and was going across to him, when I received a blow on the top of my head from a baton. I thought nothing of it, and went to help my friend. At this time the students had nearly all been driven by the police within the inner gate, and I was enabled to get quietly out, much discomfited and crestfallen. On my way home I discovered that my head and neck were all covered with blood, as a result of the stroke of the baton. I still bear the mark on the top of my head, but fortunately a good crop of hair conceals it. The late Dr. Nedley made the occasion of the charge and subsequent inquiry remarkable in a well-known song composed by him.

Chapter II Baely Days At The Bar— Hints To Young Barristers

Long before I became a law student I was a frequenter of the Law Courts with my father, and even in those early years there was rarely a great trial on the criminal side at which I was not present. I sat in a small compartment next the dock in Green Street when John Mitchel was sentenced in May, 1848, under the Treason Felony Act ; and well do I remember the rush of men in the gangway near the dock, including members of the Bar, each one endeavouring to shake him by the hand before he disappeared for fourteen years.

In later years I was present at many important trials in the same court-house, in which my father took part as one of the counsel. Among these were that of Kirwan, for the murder of his wife on Ireland's Eye ; the trial and acquittal of Father Petcherini, charged with burning the Bible outside the Kingstown Roman Catholic Church ; and that of Spollen, for the murder of the Secretary of

EARLY DAYS AT THE BAR 9

the Midland Great Western Railway at the Broads tone.

Whilst a law student I did not read, as was the custom then, with a member of the Bar. My father could not afford the necessary fee. This was largely compensated for by the indulgence of an old friend of my father's in the solicitor's profession, Mr. Thomas Geoghegan, who enjoyed a very considerable practice, and who allowed me to frequent his office for six months before my call. There I learned much of the practical work of the profession, and during my time with him prepared the brief which Mr. Geoghegan handed to Edward Gibson, afterwards Lord Ashbourne, lawyer, orator, and statesman, upon leaving the court on the day of his call to the Bar.

I sadly handicapped myself in the start by allowing nervousness to tie my tongue. Though a member for several years of the College Historical, the Legal and Historical, and the Law Students' Debating Societies (of the last I was secretary), I was never able to summon up courage to speak on any occasion except one. That was when I delivered a written judgment in the threadbare case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, overruling, to my own satisfaction at least, the decision of the majority of the English Judges who tried the case. Except on that solitary occasion, I had at the time of my call to the Bar never given utterance to my thoughts in public. I felt my disadvantage all the greater when I witnessed the success of those who had been fellow-students with me, but had continually availed themselves of the opportunity of joining in the various debates. I did not overcome the feeling of nervousness for two or three years after my call. I did lose it gradually, but meanwhile, I fear, valuable opportunity was lost.

I remember the first time I addressed a jury. It was in Green Street. To use a common expression, ' ' I did not know whether I was standing on my head or my heels." After the case was over a friend who had been on the jury came to me and said : " Mr. Curran, do you intend continuing at the Bar ? Because, if so, my advice to you is to give it up ; you will never do any good at it." I thanked him, but replied : " I shall try, at all events." I did try, and eventually found that, nervousness once got rid of, I had a great facility for speaking, and on the Home Circuit had great influence with the jurors.

In a book of reminiscences advice may be considered out of place, but I cannot help advising young men about to make the Bar their profession that they should at the earliest opportunity accustom themselves to public speaking, and become used to what at first is a most unnerving noise — the sound of their own voice. This can best be done in one or other of the debating societies. I have often thought in the later days when fortune smiled that few feelings are more pleasurable than that of addressing a jury upon a complicated state

EARLY DAYS AT THE BAR 11

of facts, realizing as you progress that the initial hostility of those twelve good men and true is being gradually disarmed and the road smoothed to a favourable verdict.

While dealing with the art of public speaking, some few hints on cross-examination for the benefit of my many young friends of both professions will, I hope, Dot be considered out of place. Many of the most eminent of our Judges and of my professional friends at the Bar have commenced their legal career at Quarter Sessions, which forms a first-class school for beginners in either profession ; and one who has presided over a County Court as long as I have may therefore presume to give the benefit of his experience.

In the first place, avoid shouting or speaking loudly to a witness unless you have caught him in a contradiction which you wish to emphasize. If the witness be apparently truth-telling, it only sets the jury against you out of sympathy for him. Some men — many, indeed, high in the profession — make a habit of commencing their cross-examination by taking the witness by question and answer through his direct examination, under the impression evidently that, if done in an unbelieving tone, this has the effect of shaking his evidence with the Judge and jury. It does nothing of the kind. In the vast majority of cases the repetition only sets up, by emphasizing, the evidence given on the direct.

It may be taken for granted that a considerable percentage of the parties charged with criminal offences are guilty. In defending a prisoner it is not his moral guilt that is at issue. The sole question for the jury is whether there is legal evidence to warrant a conviction ; hence it is always better, in cross-examining a witness whom you believe to be telling the truth, to steer as clear as possible outside the cardinal facts of the case, and to keep as much as you can to what I may call its fringe. This advice also applies to the case of a story concocted by two or more witnesses.

In the case of a witness who is apparently truth - telling, it would be better to rely on some discrepancy between the deposition and the evidence given in court, for such can nearly always be found. I have acquitted many upon such a discrepancy, purposely avoiding the main facts ; but it must be strongly relied on by counsel, otherwise the jury will not be impressed by it.

If a concocted story be supported by the evidence of two or more witnesses, they are certain to be positive as to their main facts, and to agree about them with little chance of being broken down by cross-examination. Here, again, one must keep clear of the evidence directly imputing guilt given on the direct, and deal only with the incidental evidence outside those main facts, relying only on apparently immaterial contradictions between the witnesses, and any difference between their state-

EARLY DAYS AT THE BAR 13

merits and those in their depositions. I assume, of course, that a request has been made during the examination of each witness that all the other witnesses should be kept out of court.

On one occasion I defended a prisoner before Chief Justice Whiteside. My defence was that the case for the prosecution was grounded on the concocted story of the two Crown witnesses, and I relied on contradiction, one by the other, in their evidence on facts not material to the issue. In my address to the jury I called their attention to the case of Susannah and the Elders, which, though not admitted by all to be part of the Scripture, was at all events very ancient history. There the witnesses had, as here, been ordered out of court, with the result that, though agreeing in their concocted story, the Elders differed upon an apparently immaterial fact, the name of the tree under which the alleged offence had been committed, the result being the acquittal of the woman.

The Chief Justice, in charging the jury, said that such an argument could not apply in every case, as otherwise one might argue that the history of the crucifixion of Our Lord was false because the Gospels apparently differed as to whether both thieves were impenitent.

At all events, the jury considered the case of Susannah was good enough for them, and acquitted the prisoner.

I have always considered it unfair, in cross-examining a seemingly truthful witness, to try and break down his evidence by fastening on some mannerism or mode of speech, or his name. I only adopted this course on one occasion, and that was to some extent inadvertently. An employee of the Post Office was prosecuted before the late Judge Keogh for being short in his accounts. I defended the prisoner. The case for the prosecution depended upon the accuracy of a witness, who in a very clear manner showed the alleged defalcations. His Christian name and surname were very similar, and sounded almost alike. I shall call them A. B. I by mistake addressed him transposing the names. To the amusement of the jury, he indignantly denied that was his name. " My name, sir," he said to me, "is A. B., not B. A." I accordingly persisted in addressing him as Mr. B. A., with the result that he became so indignant that his evidence as to his accounts became confused and worthless.

It is well when you have to cross-examine a professional man, especially a doctor, upon a professional subject, to read up the matter the night before. Those gentlemen rely on their general knowledge acquired by practice, and also, I have often thought, upon the presumed ignorance of the lawyer on the subject, and frequently find themselves upset by questions as to the latest theories and practice found in the most recent X textbooks. Knowledge thus acquired by me the

EARLY DAYS AT THE BAR 15

night before has often enabled me to break down the evidence of a doctor on an important point, both to his surprise and indignation.

I never scrupled about upsetting an official when that was possible without doing the official any injury. Mr. John Mallon, late Assistant-Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, in his " Recollections " edited by Mr. Bussy, gives the following account of his cross-examination by me: "Mr. Curran had defended a man named Keenan, who was charged with shooting a landagent and solicitor named Cusack. I had been called as a witness for the prosecution, and in that case he gave me such a deuce of a hammering, and so successfully turned and twisted my perfectly truthful evidence, that he won my admiration and everlasting respect."

In cross-examination avoid as much as possible asking a question when you are not fairly sure what the answer will be. You may by asking such questions recall to a truth-telling witness some matter which he has inadvertently forgotten, or let in evidence which could not have been given by the Crown on the direct. It must be left to the experience of counsel and having regard to the necessities of the case to disregard this rule, but in my experience its non-observance has resulted in many a conviction.

You may cross-examine a witness as to the statements made by him in his deposition, but, as the latter frequently contains illegal and prejudicial statements, do not read a part of the deposition to contradict him, or put it in evidence without first having ascertained the views of the Judge as to the law ; for some Judges hold that, if you read any part of it, it puts in evidence the entire of the deposition, whilst others, like the late Chief Baron Pigot, allow only the selected part to be used.

Chapter III

THE YELVERTON CASE— MR. WHITESIDE'S TRIUMPH

I was called to the Bar in the year 1860, and from that year, until he died in 1868, I was more than ever the constant follower of my father. Together with a dear old friend of mine a couple of years my senior, Constantine Molloy, of whom I shall speak later, I learned to discharge the most responsible duty which counsel can be called upon to perform — the defence of persons charged with crimes — by watching my father's peculiarly effective mode of cross-examination and address. But the crimes were not at that time of an ordinary description ; most of them were murders, Whiteboy cases or similar offences, which arose from the troubled state of the country.

I remember one case tried before the late Chief Baron Pigot. A schoolmaster was tried before a jury in Maryborough on a charge of writing a threatening letter. The evidence as to the handwriting was very conclusive. An expert from Dublin, the late Mr. Power, then manager of the

17 2

National Bank, Mountmellick, and afterwards in College Green, and the District Inspector, all three, swore positively as to the identity of the writing in the threatening letter with a writing admittedly in the handwriting of the prisoner. The case for the defence seemed very hopeless. I need not say that my father in his address to the jury referred to the observation of Judge Keogh to the effect that " he would not hang a dog on the evidence of an expert." While he was speaking, knowing that our handwriting was very similar, I wrote my full name, " John Adye Curran," three times on a sheet of note-paper, and when he had concluded, asked him to write his name alternately after mine. This was done in the presence of Molloy. Mr. Power was then recalled, and having admitted that he was principally expert in signatures, having regard to his position in the Bank, he was asked if he could distinguish the handwriting in the six names on the sheet of paper. He requested some time to consider and consult with the other experts, and the Chief Baron agreed, and adjourned the Court for an hour. At the end of that time each of the three experts was recalled. Each differed one with the other, but not one was correct. Molloy was sworn as to the order in which the names had been written, and the prisoner was triumphantly acquitted.

The Right Hon. James Whiteside was a most accomplished and eloquent speaker and a

THE YELVERTON CASE 19

splendid advocate. Not being overburdened with briefs for some time after my call, I had abundant opportunities of listening to him, and was an attentive spectator of his many triumphs at the Bar when in his prime.

I frequently followed him from court to court — but never alone, for, as his portly figure was seen emerging from a court, there might also be seen following in his wake a large crowd, who only waited to ascertain what court he next entered, once more to become his audience. All this continued as long as he remained practising at the Four Courts. He received a great and memorable ovation from all sides on his entry into the House of Commons after his magnificent speech in the Yelverton case. Very shortly after I was called, I felt greatly honoured by an introduction to him, and I sat behind him during the entire Yelverton trial.

With varying success, but final failure, Miss Teresa Longworth courageously fought her way through the various courts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, in the assertion that she was the lawful wife of Major the Hon. William Charles Yelverton, afterwards fourth Viscount Avonmore. She relied on two marriages — one in Scotland, where on April 12, 1857, the Major read aloud to Miss Longworth the Church of England marriage service in her lodgings in Edinburgh. They were afterwards married by a Catholic clergyman in the parish church of Rostrevor, Ireland, and lived together in both countries. The House of Lords eventually by a majority decided against the validity of both marriages. The matter came before the Irish Courts in the case of Th el wall v. Yelverton. The plaintiff claimed against the defendant, Major Yelverton, a large sum of money, for advances made by him to Miss Longworth as the wife of defendant. The case was tried by the late Chief Justice Monahan and a special jury in the month of February, 1861, and lasted several days.

There was a very strong Bar engaged on both sides. Mr. Sergeant Sullivan, Q.C., Right Hon. James Whiteside, Q.C., Francis Macdonough, Q.C., and John F. Townsend, LL.D., appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Richard N. Parker, solicitor. The Right Hon. Abraham Brewster, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Armstrong, Q.C., John Thomas Ball, Q.C., and H. P. Jellett, Q.C., appeared for the defendant, instructed by Messrs. Geale and Dwyer, solicitors.

The jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount, thus establishing the validity of the Irish marriage in Ireland. The announcement of the verdict was received with an extraordinary burst of applause from a densely crowded court. The cheers were taken up by an immense crowd which thronged the outer large hall and precincts, and by a still larger crowd which lined the quays for a considerable distance, and which had been from

THE YELVERTON CASE 21

early in the day anxiously awaiting the result. The cheers were resumed again and again by the crowd, numbering over 50,000, as they accompanied the lady to the Gresham Hotel, and did not separate until she came out on the balcony, when she thanked them in some happy words.