Court Cases​

 

 

 

1841 - Murder in Doaghbeg?

Francis Sweeney mentioned in the group chat about a murder in Doaghbeg in the 1840s and this may have been the reason the Barracks was built.  After thorough research, we found this;

​

Londonderry Sentinel 27 March 1841 page 1 Crown Court –

Robert Costello, an officer of the revenue police, and John Mulhern, a private under his command, were indicted, the latter for killing Mary Gallagher, at Doaghbeg, on the 6th of February, by discharging a loaded gun at her, and the former for aiding and assisting in the offence charged in the indictment…..

 

Here’s more details into the alleged murder as per the resulting court case;

On Thursday March 18th 1841, Chief Baron Brady took his seat in the Crown Court to review a number of proceedings, one being that of the murder of Mary Gallagher, as per the above notes, Robert Costello and John Mulhern were indicted for said murder.

The first witness called was a Doctor Fullerton who was examined by Mr Smyley, QC.  Fullerton confirmed to seeing the body of Mary Gallagher at her mother’s house on February 7th of the same year, after she had died, and again at the inquest on February 19th after it had been disinterred.  He examined the body and found the skull fractured and a bullet lodged in the back part of the head.  Part of the skull had to be removed before the bullet could be extracted.  He stated the injury caused by the bullet was sufficient enough to cause death.

Denis Gallagher was next to be examined by Mr. Smyley.  Denis lived in Doaghbeg and was a brother of Mary Gallagher.  He was witness to the event and confirmed that Mary passed away on the 7th February, one day after the fatal shot was fired.  She lived in the same house as Denis.  Denis recalls the day of the murder; the police made their way to the Gallagher residence to seize potale.  Mr. Costello arrived shortly after the seizure and Denis estimated there were eight policemen in total at the scene.  Mulhern, the other prisoner, was also present, while some of the Doaghbeg town people were also at the scene.  It was reported there was no rioting before the seizure.  Denis stated he did not see people with sticks or stones nor was there any shouting.  Mister Costello desired his men to spill the potale and destroy the hogsheads (a large cask used for holding alcohol).  He also told the mob to drink the potale, that it was as good as ale for them and that Costello drank some himself, as did Denis Gallagher upon invitation from the officer.  The police then smashed the staves of the vessels into two shares, one of them went to the house of Denis’ brother for a spade.  A boy came and prevented this from happening and took the spade from the policeman.  The police were now arguing with the people present.  At this stage, Denis heard the officer instructing his men to fire.  The officer fired a pistol in the direction of the people and one of the men fired after him.  Neither shot did any damage.  The third shot fired by Mulhern struck Mary Gallagher.  After the first shot was fired, stones were thrown across the houses.  Denis did not see Mary Gallagher fall but stated she was wounded above the eye.  The body was buried 8 days before being taken up by order of the coroner for reexamination.

James Doherty Esq, then cross examined Gallagher about Mr. Costello,  Gallagher stated he was an officer of the police.  The other prisoner (Mulhern) is a private.  There was a still seized before the police came to Doaghbeg.  They did not know who it belonged to, but they got it roughly a mile from where the Denis Gallagher lived.  They went into this still house at times and saw the still at full work.  On the morning of the murder, they were not in the still house and did not know who owned the potale.  They saw the mob there and called them ‘idle people’.  He did not see any staves with any of them.  He also did not see any stones thrown when the shots were fired but did see stones thrown over the house afterwards.  He wasn’t sure if any were thrown before or after that.  Doesn’t know who threw the stones.  The houses were between him and them.  The people scattered after the shots were fired.  He couldn’t tell who was carrying the worm of the still, could have been a policeman.  Did not see any attempt to take it from him.  The hogshead was broken before the spade was sent for.  He saw an Ennishowen man throw a hoop over the house.  Heard Mr. Costello say to him, if he ever sees the like again, he will shoot him.  Thinks the police might have carried off their seizure if Mr. Costello had not given any of the people the potale.   Did not see blood on the hands of the police or that any of them were struck by stones.  Neither witness nor his brothers had any share of the potale. 

Pat Gallagher was examined by Mr. Smyley.  Pat is a brother of Denis.  He could not speak English so had an interpreter present.  His detail was much the same as Denis’.  Except that he stated seeing the people put forth their hands in a threatening manner towards the police who he then saw draw their bayonets and threaten the country people.  Upon cross examination by Oliver Sproule Esq, he did admit seeing people throw stones before shots were fired.

Daniel McAteer was examined by Mr. Smyley.  The police destroyed the potale before the shots were fired and saw a man drink some out of a noggin.  This was before the officer came.  McAteer gave them a can to lift the potale with, they asked him for a spade, but he refused.  He told Mr. Costello that he would get him a spade, went out of the house with a spade in his hand, went toward the people and endeavored to keep them back.  Mr. Costello was obliged to retire into McAteer’s door, stones were then thrown, Costello ordered his men to fire, Costello fired a pistol himself but done no harm, he cannot tell whether any of the stones struck Costello.  Stones were thrown at the direction he was standing and at the police.  He also seen Mary Gallagher after she received the wound, she died the next day.

McAteer was then cross examined by Mr. Doherty.  Stated Costello had made a seizure of a still at full work that morning and a good many vessel.  He heard it was to make a gutter for the potale to run off, that’s why they wanted a spade.  He considered Costello in great danger when the stones were being thrown, he may have been in danger of his life, he had to retreat before he fired.  He thinks he could have been killed by one blow of the stones.  He also considered Costello would have been in danger of losing his life if it wasn’t for him (Daniel McAteer) who endeavored to save him.  He saw marks made by the stones at the door posts where Costello was standing.  McAteer went out with the objective of saving Costello.  Stones were thrown before shots were fired.  The crowd began to slacken as soon as shots were fired.  Heard that it was to prevent Costello from making any more seizures that made him be attacked.  He also heard from those throwing the stones that there was more malt in the country.

McAteer stated he did not see who fired the shot that killed Mary Gallagher.

Daniel Martin also gave testimony that was mostly similar to that of former witnesses.  He did state that stones were thrown before and after shots were fired.

The case for the crown having closed, Mr. Doherty addressed the court and jury on behalf of the prisoner.  He said no man regretted more the killing of Mary Gallagher that Costello.  The duties of the situation which his client filled were arduous and responsible and not unfrequently of a dangerous character.  It was too bad, when obliged, in defense of his own life, to act as he had done in the present instance.  For insinuations to be thrown out by the prosecutors that he actually had an intention of committing murder.

Mr. Smyley, with some warmth, said that there were no insinuations of such put forward by the crown.

Mr. Doherty admitted the crown had conducted the case very properly.  But he considered he had a perfect right to find fault with the testimony of Denis Gallagher which, when contrasted with the evidence of Daniel McAteer, appeared very striking.  Costello was anxious for a full and fair investigation into his conduct and he had now obtained it.  After adverting to the perilous situation that Costello found himself in, Mr. Doherty referred to the 7th and 8th of Geo IV, Chapter 43, on the revenue laws which stated he had a right to give evidence, and from which it did appear that if a revenue officer was being attacked when on duty he is justified in opposing force with force.  It was shown Costello was assaulted and placed in imminent peril, before he had instructed his men to fire.  Mr. Doherty read a portion of the act, which bearing on the subject appeared fairly quoted.

The following witnesses were then called for the defense;

Patrick McGuire sworn and examined by Oliver Sproule Esq.  McGuire was part of Costello’s party on the morning of the 6th February.  They had seized a still head and worm before going to Doaghbeg.  Seized potale there, there were nearly 100 country people present when they arrived.  McGuire knows Irish, he heard some of the countrymen say to one another that they were a slack set of people if they let eight policemen make such a destruction and to let them away without murdering them.  He saw stones thrown, was struck himself on the arm, a round of ammunition was knocked out of his arm by the blow, thinks the party would have murdered if they had not fired.  There were a great many stones thrown at them.  Is sure the firing did not continue longer than was necessary.  The prisoner Mulhern was carrying the worm and did not fire a shot at all.

Cross examined by Mr. Smyley, the worm was not seized in Doaghbeg, there was no disturbance until after the potale was destroyed.  He did not see any of it drunk.  Saw it carried out in vessels to be spilled.  Did not think it would be effectively destroyed till it would be scattered so as a drop of it could not be gathered up.  Though it was early, there was probably 100 people present.  One of the men bade/instructed them fall out like soldiers which they accordingly did.  He considered them a rebellious mob.  McAteer was assisting the police, so was Sweeny and one Martin.  The police drew their bayonets when struck with stones.  Costello was struck three or four times and fired from McAteer’s doorway.  It was necessary for him to do so at the time to protect himself.  Some ran, some did not, after the first shot was fired.  Costello and his men could not retreat safely, the woman was killed by the third shot.

Patrick Sweeney and James Grother, two more of the policemen present, corroborated the testimony of McGuire.  They said they were both struck by stones and that stones were thrown before a shot was fired.

Mr. John Lavens of Milford was examined by Mr. Doherty and stated he was acquainted with Mr. Costello for three years and that he never knew a more superior officer.  He said Costello was in the habit of coming to Milford once a fortnight and that he never saw anything with him but what was most respectable.

The Chief Baron in his charge to the jury, said it was immaterial whether or not the shot which killed the woman was fired by either prisoners.  The law authorized a revenue officer, if attacked on duty, to defend himself by opposing force to force.  The question for them was to try and figure by evidence that had come before them, consider the attack on Mr. Costello of sufficient violence to cause him to order his men to fire.  As in that case, was he perfectly justifiable in doing so, or on the other hand, the shots were fired without provocation, then the prisoners were guilty of the offence and charged in the indictment.

The jury retired for a short time and returned with a verdict of not guilty for both prisoners.

​

We also found a written entry which was sent to the newspaper before the trial;

 

l observe a paragraph giving quite an erroneous account of an encounter between the people of Doaghbeg and the revenue police. For the information of the numerous readers of your widely circulating paper, I transmit you the following statement of the matter, which may be relied on correct.  On the morning of Saturday, the 6th, a party of Milford revenue Police, consisting about eight men. with Mr. Costello, their officer, at their head, proceeded at an early hour towards Doaghbeg, searching the adjacent mountains on their route, on which they made seizure of some distilling apparatus, destroying part and carrying part (the worm, I believe) to Doaghbeg.  A few of the police arrived in the hamlet before Mr. Costello came up, made search and seized potale. Part which Mr. C. gave to his men, and also to the people, to drink, the remainder spilled out; but it collected into much from which it might again be preserved for distillation, (and it is not an unusual practice have a trough made close at hand, in order to receive the potale that may drain from the broken vessels to distilled when the police retire.) Mr. C. sent for a spade to let it away. It was when the policeman was bringing the spade that he was first opposed the people, who stopped the man and took the spade from him; some altercation ensued, the people threatening to stone the police if they persisted in the work. One of the more peaceable of the inhabitants here interfered to pacify the people, offering a spade, for which Mr. C went to his house, and on his return, found the people pelting police with stones. Mr. C. drew his men in close order, retired some distance, and, the people still persisted in assaulting the police with missiles. Mr. C. gave orders to fire; he first let off his own pistol, (it is thought, over their heads, as it did no injury,) two of his men then fired, one of the shots took effect in the head of a girl, who, on hearing the first shot, very imprudently ran in line of the fire in order to get to her brothers and bring them from among the assailants. On receiving the Injury, she fell, and remained insensible till her death, which took place about twenty hours after. No other person was injured. The crowd now dispersed, and Mr. C. made no further search but retired with his party.

On Tuesday, the 9th, Sir James Stewart, Portstewart, Bart. J.P, with John Law, Esq , J P., visited Doaghbeg to investigate the matter, when it appeared, the testimony the witnesses, that Mr. C. was justifiable In firing, and that his life, well the lives of his party, was in danger. On the reports reaching the Castle of Dublin, his Excellency was pleased to order John Miller, Esq., coroner, hold an inquest on the body of the deceased, Mary Gallagher, of Doaghbeg. Mr. Miller arrived in Tamney, on Friday, 19th, for that purpose and proceeded with the investigation. The body was disinterred; Doctor Fullerton, medical superintendent of the district, assisted by Mr. McGarvey, surgeon, examined the head. The skull was opened by the passage of the ball for a distance of two inches at the left temple, on its course to the back part of the substance of the brain, in which situation it (the ball) was found, much flattened and very irregular on the surface.  Mr. Miller, after a most patient and protracted examination of witnesses, received verdict that Mr. Costello was not justifiable in firing, it appeared in the jury he (Mr. C.) was not in danger of his life. Mr. Miller, in consequence, granted warrant for Mr. Costello.

​

​

We are not 100% sure who Mary Gallagher was. We are aware that there were Gallaghers in the area before 1900 but all their family either emigrated or died out as there were no Gallaghers in Doaghbeg in the 1901 census or 1911 census. 

​

​

1847 - Assault

Owen Sweeney, Rose Sweeney (his wife) and their children Catherine, Grace and Morgan were indicted for assaulting Charles McAdoo at Doaghbeg on June 30th 1847.

Charles McAdoo was examined by Mr. Smyly QC, it appeared he had gone to the lands of the prisoner where his brother William seized a cow belonging to him. He was assaulted by the persons in the dock – the wife and children of the prisoner Owen Sweeney who with the little boy came to take away the cow, but it did not appear that he received any injury. 

The prisoner, who appeared to be a very poor man, offered him a field of oats for the debt which he was anxious he should accept and let the cow remain as she was in poverty at the time, but that he had afterwards taken the cow, sold her by auction and was paid his money. 

This, the prosecutor admitted, Not Guilty.

​

​

1885 – Illegal Bog Cutting

THE EARL OF LEITRIM AND HIS TENANTS At the Tamney Petty Sessions—Captain Barton, J.P., and Captain Peel, R.M, presiding, the principal cases for hearing were thirty-eight at the suit the Earl of Leitrim against his tenants, some for cutting turf without permits, some for malicious damage in cutting sods on cut-out bog, a few for trespass of cattle, and one for trespass of persons.

Mr. Martin, S.C.S., appeared for the Earl of Leitrim, and, in stating the cases generally to the Court, said that these thirty-eight or forty tenants were singularly ungenerous and ungrateful to their landlord. When his Lordship succeeded to the estate one of the grievances brought before him by these tenants was that they were followed and watched by a crowd of bailiffs, who reported everything they did to the late earl, and they ascribed all the misunderstandings they ever had with their landlord to the misrepresentations of those bailiffs, and begged of their present Earl dismiss them, and that they would watch his property and protect his interests better than they ever had been.

His Lordship, believing there was something in their complaint, set about, and soon it could be reasonably accomplished, in justice to the bailiffs, he dismissed them all but two or three men of unquestionable character, and appealed to the honor of his tenants to carry out their promise; but in that he (Mr. Martin) was sorry say they had grievously failed, the facts be disclosed in these cases would show.

There was at that time valuable turf bog, called Doaghbeg bog, within his Lordship’s preserves, and in order to bring it into the most profitable and convenient state for the use of his tenants, subject to the payment of a few shillings for a permit to cut their turf upon it, he expended upon this bog £360 in draining it and making roads through it, without charging a single penny to his tenants in respect of this outlay; and for the further use of his tenants a place of grazing, subject a very small charge, expended £1,503 in fencing and draining a large extent of cut out bog, called Knockdonnelly Park, and it was those tenants he employed to make the improvements, and to them he paid those large sums, amounting £1,868; and yet, after all that has been done for them, what was the result ?

Why, some thirty or forty of the men who had pledged themselves to watch and defend their landlord’s property were there that day charged with the criminal offence of having themselves willfully and maliciously damaged and injured the property they had pledged themselves to protect. Some of them, with the high hand, had entered upon Doaghbeg bog and cut their turf without leave or license, and others, in like manner, had gone into the fenced park and dug up and carried away the soil, stripping the rocks, and leaving the place waste. Lord Leitrim had instructed him (Mr. Martin) to attend there and prosecute those men, for which no one could blame him. Mr. Martin here said the only course he saw open to his Lordship now was to recall the dismissed bailiffs and add their extra salaries to the charge for the bog tickets. He said, however, that Mr. Manning, Lord Leitrim’s agent, had just suggested to him what he hoped would be a more satisfactory solution of the difficulty—namely, he had instructed him to say to the tenants that, if they confessed their error, and paid the usual 5 shillings for their bog tickets, and paid the costs of the day, he would ask the magistrates not impose any penalty upon them.  He said he had no authority from his Lordship to do so, but he would take it upon himself.

The consequence was that all the tenants agreed the terms offered, except one.  He contended that he had not cut his turf on the place alleged, and as there appeared some doubt about it, the case was adjourned to ascertain the facts.  All the parties paid before the Court rose, except a few who were not prepared, and they all submitted to fines of 1d and 6d, with costs, and 5s compensation. The other cases in court were of no importance, being mostly for poor rates.