Seamus Breathnach’s Irish-criminology.

com examines Irish society through its norm-creating as well as its

norm-breaking agencies. These include the Church controls of Ireland’s State -- its Schools, Law, Police,
Courts, Prisons, Media and much more...

 
15.) Addenda
 

15d.) Irish American cases (Book #20)

BLIND JUSTICE
 

 
 CONTENTS

1. Blind Justice 1872

2. The Glennlara Murder, 1879
3. The American Dream, 1885
4. Love Thy Father, 1899
5. The Lodger, 1902
6. Foster, 1905
7. Home Is The Hero 1910
8. Michael Walsh, 1924
9. Annie Walsh, 1929
10. The Oldest man in the World, 1932
11. Lehman, 1945
 Blind Justice

The small market town of Ballyjamesduff is situated in the barony

of Castlerahan, in the county of Cavan. These days the old town’s
location is more apt to be described as being ‘eight miles from

C ava n t o w n a n d f o r ty f o u r f r o m
D u b l i n .’ ( S o m e fly-fishing
Ballyjamesduffians like to think that
forty four miles is not quite far enough
away from the hustle and bustle of the
Metropolis!)

The town’s Market House (erected in

1813) is still in tact, and what with the
addition of a modern Museum erected to
its own self-esteem, Ballyjamesduff has
much to commend it. Any Irish Museum
that is unafraid of exhibiting its Sheela-
na-Gigs for all and sundry to see, or of
housing same in a nineteenth century
convent, deserves all the ecumenical support it receives.

Like all other Irish towns, Ballyjamesuff had its fill both of
religious wars and their aftermath, emigration. But such
experiences are not always negative. In the eighteenth century, for
example, John Wesley made his way to the town to preach a new
religion and built a Methodist church for those who were in the
mood for religious change.

A century later , Percy French (1854 -- 1920), the song-writer

and drains-inspector for the county of Cavan circa 1870s-80s, tried
his hand at another kind of preaching. In his much-loved ballad
‘Come Back Paddy Riley To Ballyjamesduff’ , he tried to convince
the plain people of the county that ‘the grass grows greener’ in
Ballyjamesduff than anywhere else. Some people say he had
enormous success in this enterprise -- and certainly no less than
John Wesley.

Apart from being the town that everyone wants to visit,

Ballyjamesduff has in more recent times become both a place of
retreat as well as a thriving commercial hub, a product of the Celtic
Tiger - and a far cry from its 1837 description when , according to
Samuel Lewis, the town had ’ five streets, containing together 150
houses’. That was when the town’s inhabitants numbered less than
a thousand.

The town developed along an old mail-coach road that ran

between Virginia in the South East of the county to the more
central town of Cavan -- hence the stage-coach quality of its broad
main street. In 1820 the Virginia/Cavan route changed and so, too,
did Ballyjamesduff. It became something of a quiet backwater. And
by the 1870s , the town had expanded considerably, but not

unpleasantly. It had its own police station (Royal Irish

Constabulary) and it held its own petty sessions. It also had large
contingents of Yeomen. But the yeomanry, and the militiamen and
the religious wars aside, part of the town’s attraction had always
been its comparative safety, and had it not been for a spectacular
case of homicide in 1872, Ballyjamesduff would have remained
blissfully obscure.
 Prior to the murder of Patrick Lynch in 1872, the town rested
on its laurels as a rural retreat, where nothing more noisy than the
splash of trout was to be heard. Eighteen seventy two was a very
particular year. So far as murder was concerned, it fell on a mild
year within a mild decade. And despite the scandal two years
earlier, when Hugh Fay was tried for choking his lover Mary Lynch of
Ballyjamesduff with a belt (Lynch being a popular name in the
vicinity), the town was generally a murder-free zone. One might
object that no conviction was secured in that case, even when an
eye-witness to the murder was known. It was a mark of the times
that , fear of reprisals kept that witness silent, and despite several
trials, the prosecution-case collapsed utterly.

But how murder-free was Ballyjamesduff before 1872?

During the decade between 1861 and 1870, the Irish Bench
handed down 40 capital sentences, and twenty of them resulted in
an execution. During the following decade -- that is, between 1871
and 1880 -- 31 capital sentences were handed down and 15 of
them resulted in an execution. So, while the 50% execution-rate
held firm for both decades, the annual average number of persons
hanged throughout the first decade was 2, while for the second
decade it fell to 1.5.

But worse was to come, because for the decade between 1881
and 1890 the figures doubled, that is, 66 capital sentences were
passed and 30 persons were executed. In other words the annual
average number of capital sentences and executions in the sixties
was respectively 4 in the sixties and carried 2 executions, then it
fell to 3 in the seventies and half were executed, and then in the
awful eighties it more than doubled to over 6 , accounting for 3
executions per year on average. In this context, therefore, 1872
was a mild year when it came to murder or execution. Moreover,
1872 was particularly mild in that it accounted for a mere 2
executions and zero commutations. Indeed, with the exceptions of
1868 and 1877, when there were no executions registered, 1872
was one of the mildest years for the thirty years between 1861 and
1890.

Within such an overview, then, we can appreciate something of

the unusualness of the case of Patrick "Yankee" Lynch. But it was
unusual in many other ways as well.
 Perhaps the best place to begin the story is with Rose Lynch.
Before Rose married Patrick Lynch, she owned a bog valued 10/-.
And when Patrick returned home from America with some dollars in
his pocket, he married Rose. In some respects he married the bog
as well; for while Rose made a man of him, possession of the bog
elevated him from foot-lose emigrant to the proud possessor of a
‘small-farml.’ The couple , with their son, Patrick Jnr., who was only
eight years old in ’72, lived in comfort at Lackamore, a few miles
outside Ballyjamesduff. Unfortunately , the bogland that blessed
their marriage and gave the ‘Yankee’ such high prospects, began
to assume a controversial aspect. In abutting the land of the Smith
brothers (and their sister) the ‘ten bob’-bog rapidly became the
source of a bitter quarrel that was to become fatal.

Prior to his murder -- on July 3 1872 -- Patrick had spent some

seven years in the US. And then more recently - just before the
harvest of ‘72 - he revisited the US again, this time for a few
months’ duration. In an age when the Irish ‘Punt’ was as
inconcieveable as a European Euro, the dollar was almighty and
Rose Lynch would have been the firsst to admit that ‘the American
dollar’ made life easier for herself and her family. And what if
Patrick on occasion drank a little more than was good for him, it
was his own money he was drinking and he only did so when he
came home from the states! In any event, he was a reliable
husband, a good father and a reliable provider.

It was because of his American visits that Patrick came to be

widely known as the ‘Yankee’ -- an ambiguous if familiar term,
which allowed his neighbors to reserve feelings both of endearment
and envy in their everyday third-party references to him.

While he was abroad, things were settled at home. It was only

when he came back to Ireland in the spring of ‘72 that the
relationship between himself and the Smiths began to unravel.
There were in all three Smith-brothers. Laurence was the blind one,
and then there were the married ones, John and Patrick. There was
also Laurence’s sister and his nephew, Bernard. They all lived in the
family farm just a few miles outside of Ballyjamesduff in the
direction of the New Inn – which was quite near where the Lynch-
family lived. The friction centred around the relationship between
Patrick Lynch and Laurence Smith. Laurence was well known
around town, not just because of his blindness but also because of
his skills in negotiating the streets of Ballyjamesduff and the
surrounding roads with the aid of a stick and a well-trained dog.

In many ways both Patrick Lynch and Laurence Smith had

much in common. If Lynch had travelled abroad to make his
fortune, so, too, had Smith. In his prime, Laurence Smith (40) had
emigrated to Australia to work as a digger on the gold rush sites. It
was there that an industrial accident which cost his sight. The
goldfields, according to one authority, were frontier conurbations,
where an unusual mix of men and women came together. Across
the country, gold-fields became cultural 'melting pots'; over half the
Victorian goldfields' with a population of 150,000 (in 1858) were
British immigrants, and some 40,000 of them were Chinese miners
and assorted workers.

www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/mateship

It was unfortunate that when Laurence Smith returned to

Ireland he had nothing like Patrick Lynch’s wealth. Nevertheless,
he was of the fervent opinion that Rose’s bog had always been
Smith-land as of right-- no matter how Patrick Lynch or his wife’s
family claimed prior title to it.

In her statement to the RIC, Rose Lynch recalled how violent

things had become in Ballyjamesduff. She referred to an incident in
April, when Patrick struggled home from town one night. He had
been severely beaten and had been left on the side of the road by
his attackers. He became sick from the attack: he wretched on the
side of the road. Worse was to come, for on the afternoon of the
July 3 he was found again on the side of the road. This time he had
been beaten to death.

According to the medical evidence, Patrick Lynch died from

internal bleeding caused by no less than 18 wounds, 17 of which
were described as ‘incised wounds’ and 14 of which were fatal. Two
of the wounds extended from three-and-a-half to four inches deep
and penetrated the chest cavity. Another seven wounds penetrated
the abdomen, another the liver, and yet another behind the liver.
The instrument used was probably a knife. According to the forensic
evidence, the wounds had been inflicted partly while the deceased
was standing, partly when stooped, and partly while he was in a
recumbent position. In whatever posture the deceased assumed,
the quick, repeated stabs and the internal bleeding were the cause
of death.

So random were the wounds that one of the great curiosities

about the murder was trying to imagine how it happened. Who
would murder so indiscriminately? Who would strike their prey so
repetitively -- and in such a promiscuous manner? Murders, as with
most aggravated personal assaults, quite often exhibit an unusual
disciplinary efficiency. Where people tussle for life, murderers
usually try to do maximum damage with minimum effort -- and as
efficiently as possible! Between combatants, there is an economy of
opportunity and energy that is rarely realized. But the splay of
wounds sustained by Patrick Lynch conveyed the opposite
impression.

If one can imagine two persons fighting with the explicit intent
of killing each other, one expects the scene to contain a compound
of clues describing the will to conquer in each combatant. One
expects the clues to exhibit some aesthetic mix of anger ,
repulsion, assault, defense and attack. The exigency as well as the
effort to immobilize and kill are sometimes inscribed on the
defeated corpse. Patrick Lynch’s corpse proved extraordinary – not
just in the multiplicity of assaults made, but rather because each
volley made was made anew, as if its predecessor had no effect or
geographic connection either with the volleys preceding or
following. In this sense the stab-wounds appeared to be
disconnected, and suggested -- peculiarly -- that they had been
inflicted at random. That so many of the wounds inflicted had been
fatal also suggested a most unusually passionate desire to destroy.
It prompted the notion, indeed, that the murderer was for some
time stabbing a dead or a dysfunctional body! Was the murderer
blinded by his passion, or was he simply blind? Or both?

Several people had seen the actual murder as it unfolded. It

happened at circa 3 p.m. in the afternoon on a public road. Some
people tried to break up the struggle -- at which time Lynch
purportedly rose from the ground and exclaimed, "See what you
have done?" But he had no sooner said these words than he
dropped dead.

The other pecular aspect about the murder was the fact that
everyone in Ballyjamesduff knew who did it, irrrespective of
whether they witnessed it or not. They even knew before it
happened that it might well occur. The real question was never who
killed ‘Yankee‘ Lynch or, indeed, why he was killed. Everyone knew
the answers to these questions. What they didn’t know was ‘How’.
How was Patrick Lynch killed? And it was this aspect rather than
any other that caught the public’s imagination.

How could Laurence Smith, a blind man, who could not get
about the town or the countryside without the aid of a stick and a
dog, manage to dole out such physical pain? How could he catch up
with ‘Yankee’ Lynch, a perfectly fit man, hold on to him on the main
road, and stab him 18 times, particularly when he couldn’t see
him? And when Lynch, to all intents and purposes, had the full use
of his senses!

Three Trials

Two juries had already considered this question and on both

occasions they failed to agree. This in fact was Laurence Smith’s
third trial. It was widely known -- not just to the jury, but all over
Cavan county -- that on the afternoon of the murder the ‘Yankee’
was seen leaving Ballyjamesduff on the road home. It was early in
the afternoon, but he was in the mood for celebrating -- and that
meant he got quite drunk.

A half-hour after his departure from Ballyjamesduff , Laurence

Smith also left Ballyjamesduff. There was compelling evidence to
show that the blind man even took a circuitous route, by way of a
bye road, which would more or less show that he was not anxious
to overtake the deceased, but, on the contrary, would show that he
was trying to avoid him. Unfortunately, as the popular account had
it, he did overtake Patrick Lynch. And when both men came within
some proximity with each other, then, as everybody believed, ‘skin
and hair would be flying’.

But how, precisely, did the two men come into what the Judge
of trial called this "unwelcome contact" with each other? This was
the mysterious point upon which the jury had to decide, but could
not.

All other questions as to Laurence Smith’s guilt were simple.

Once one understood the antecedents to the murder -- which were
both plentiful and public -- one understood perfectly how everybody
in Ballyjamesduff came to know so much about the impending
tragedy.
 As early as 1868, for example, the neighbors ‘had words’ over
their respective adjoining land-rights. Harsh things were said and
Laurence Smith sued the deceased in Trespass, Slander and
Assault. Already, therefore, the tension between the parties had
grown to a considerable extent. Unfortunately, Laurence, who
initiated the case, now lost it. Notwithstanding the sympathies
generally accorded to afflicted persons, particularly one who could
nevermore appreciate the splendors of the Cavan countryside in all
its seasonal glory, people conceded that justice might have been
better served any other way than by an all-or-nothing court-
decision. The consequences of such black-and-white, all-or-nothng
logic as the law provided was inimical to any resolution which
neighbours need to continue living beside each other. The familial
loss of face that now followed the Smith-family in the
neighborhood, not to mention the financial loss, had to be borne
privately, stoically and coninuously. The finality of a court case in a
small community has an enduring communal life-span that nowhere
approximates any kind of calendar existence. The effects of the
Smith v Lynch case back in 1872, like so many other murders that
begin with court cases, were tremendous and enduring. Had Smith
won the case, the effect might be the same , but might have
inspired Patrick Lynch to avenge his personal and his family’s name,
thereby reversing the order of the murder, or , perhaps, being more
mobile and better funded, the family might have considered pulling
up roots and re-locating. This was never an option for the Smiths.
Moreover, in the instant case Laurence Smith and his brothers could
not sustain the financial loss of the action.

Ejectment

It was not long before insolvency proceedings followed, and by a

further order of the court made on the 15 September 1869, the
Smiths were forced to sell a `small portion ` of their land to meet
the legal costs.The land, which was sold by public auction, fetched
the market price of £25. What added to the blind man’s humiliation
was the knowledge that the land had been purchased by the
`Yankee.’

But having bought the land, Patrick Lynch was now set the
sticky problem of taking possession of it. The Smiths were too hurt
to surrender possession gracefully, and the whole county knew it. It
was at this point that Patrick Lynch began Ejectment proceedings.
Once again writs were issued and served on Laurence Smith and
his family on June 28, the hearing being due to commence at
Cavan Summer Assizes on or about July. The prisoner and his
brothers, John and Patrick, and the rest of the family felt compelled
to defend the ejectment action. It was while waiting for the
ejectment proceedings to be heard that Patrick Lynch was killed.

In nineteenth century Ireland it was considered morally

improper to force a neighbor out of his farm even when it was legal
to do so. Indeed, obtaining possession through the courts was
every bit as suspect as a police eviction, and to do it to a blind man
and his family was reprehensible beyond description.This, after all,
was the age of the agrarian crime. Maamtrasna and the Phoenix
Park murders, two of the many celebrated nineteenth century
agrarian multiple murders were only a decade away. Whether he
knew it or not, Patrick Lynch was breaking more than the first
commandment of rural survival, when he set himself the task of
evicting the Smiths. Whatever public sympathy Patrick Lynch
enjoyed before initiating eviction proceedings, by the time he got
secured the order to evict there wasn’t a man in the county who
was not emotionally on the side of the Smiths. So no one was
terribly surprised when Patrick Lynch`s body was found outside
`Barney Smith’s gate`.

News of the murder had no sooner reached the RIC Barracks in

Ballyjamesduff than Sub Inspector Ware presented himself and his
men at the Smith farmstead. Inspector Ware duly cautioned and
arrested all three brothers. It was then that Lawrence stepped
forward and declared:

`It was I who was in contact with Lynch`, he said. `You have
no business to take them. Don’t take them from their families.`

This was as good as a confession. After making some further

enquiries the Sub inspector was sufficiently satisfied to allow the
two brothers -- Patrick and John -- to remain on, but insisted that
Laurence be taken into custody. He soon found that Laurence was
ready to defend his actions.

‘I don’t consider myself an assassin’, said Laurence to the Sub

inspector in a rather rhetorically voice. ‘What I did, I did in my own
defense. I look upon myself as a soldier defending himself’. After a
moment’s pause he continued: ‘Lynch drew the knife first’, and
Laurence then demonstrated to the Sub inspector how he had
taken it from the ‘Yankee’ - that is, he gripped the Inspector’s arm
and held it in a vice-like grip. He then carefully drew his hand down
the Sub Inspector’s arm till he reached his hand. He then gave the
Inspector’s hand a demonstrative wrench, as if to dislodge the
imaginary knife from the Inspector’s grasp. With that, Laurence
asked for a drink, and someone handed him a mug of water.

‘ It was a curious thing that you knew this man’, pried the Sub
Inspector.

‘I knew him by his step’ , replied Laurence. ‘When providence

takes away one sense, it strengthens the other senses,‘ said he in a
manner that suggested he had been previously acquainted with
such a reply.

He was then taken into custody.

The initial curiosity as to how the murder happened, became a

great and enduring focal point for pub-talk in Ballyjamesduff. Most
people could not envisage a blind man gaining such advantages
over one who had the gift of sight. This curiosity in turn gave rise to
another question -- which was: would any jury ever convict a blind
man? Or convict him on such an incredible story?

Wagers were taken as long as the trials lasted and , as already

stated, there had already been two such trials. One can only
imagine the odds on the third trial around the bars of
Ballyjamesduff and surrounds!

First Trial

Mr. Law, Solicitor General, prosecuted at the first trial, which

resulted in a disagreement of the Jury. From the outset it was going
to be a peculiar trial; for who was going to give evidence of the
event as it occurred, and how – as a matter of fact – does a blind
man manage to catch, overcome and kill another who has the full
use of his senses? Without anoher demonstration from Laurence
Smith, such an account is difficult to accept, especially when
defense counsel has torn it to tatters. Furthermore, supposing that
there was such evidence, how does one prove that in striking
Patrick Lynch he was not lashing out in self-defense? Obviously the
proofs for such a case would have to be remarkably explicit.

And this was fatally evident from the outset. Even in his
address to the Jury, the Solicitor General conceded as much. He
conceded that there was a ‘ blank ‘ as to what precisely took place
between the accused and the deceased at the time of their first
meeting. One might possibly be justified in finding a verdict of
manslaughter, ‘if they could reconcile the evidence in that
direction…’ The Solicitor General further conceded that no one could
be found to testify to Laurence Smith meeting with Patrick Lynch --
a crucial stage of the prosecution, ‘concerning which the Crown
could offer no evidence’.

The question was not so much that the jury could not agree,
but rather why such a pathetic prosecution case was allowed to run
in the first place. If the State had no evidence against a citizen,
then it should not go on a ‘fishing trip’ in the hope of finding out
something or other by which they may then prosecute the
defendant. No wonder the first case collapsed. The State then had
the impertinence to have a second bite at the cherry.

Second Trial

When Smith was re-arraigned, in reply to the clerk of the Crown, he

stated that he was not prepared for the trial to go ahead as he had
no one to defend him and had no means ‘to fee Counsel’.

Baron Richard Dowse (1824-1890) must have been somewhat

surprised at this development. He was, a Dungannon man, who
was not without a blustering titter of wit. He became a graduate of
Trinity College in 1845, he was called to the Irish Bar in 1852, and
became a Queen’s Counsel in 1863,. He sowed his wild oats, as
they say, on the north-west circuit before marrying and settling
down with a lady named Moore from Clones. He also became an MP
for Derry (1864-68) and was respectively appointed solicitor-
general (1870), Attorney General (1872), and thereafter Baron of
the Exchequer. In 1890 he passed away with the Spring Assizes
while on circuit in Tralee, co. Kerry..

Baron Dowse lived at No. 38 Mountjoy Square until his death.

The Times carried an obituary notice of March 15th :

"Mr. Baron Dowse was a self-made man, who, without social advantages,
forced his way by his own merit to the eminent position which he
occupied . . . He gave at all times free and vivid utterance to his
thoughts, without waiting to examine critically the terms in which he
should mould them. These were often quaint and graphic, with a dash of
wit and humour, which, if a little wanting in dignity, .. .gave emphasis
and force to an argument or comment."
 Laurence Smith could have drawn worse Judges than the baron,
who circumvented the present difficulties without much ado. He
stated that in the exercise of his authority he would be obliged to
assign the prisoner Counsel, and he hoped Mr Irvine (his pevious
Counsel) would ‘undertake the task of seeing justice done the
prisoner’

Mr. Irvine was now, unfortunately, indisposed. He said that his

engagements in the Record Court

would deprive him of the opportunity
of defending the prisoner. And while
he would be most happy to comply
with his Lordship’s Request, especially
in a case where such responsibility
was called for, he was not disposed to
accept the case on such short notice.

This rather high-minded sentiment

regarding the interests of the blind
man led to what the local press called
a “scene” which precipitated some
agitation. The enquiry then passed
over to Mr Irvine’s Solicitor, Mr
Mahaffy. By way of explanation,
Mahaffy informed the court that two
months earlier he was offered only
two guineas for himself and three
guineas for Counsel -- an offer which he at once repudiated, and
there and then withdrew from the case. Apparently, when pressed
by Baron Dowse, but he again stated that he would not undertake
the responsibility of so serious a case on such short notice. This
situation was rather dramatic, especially for Smith who was still
fighting for his life without any legal team. One is sometimes struck
by the base company which many a high-minded public sentiment
keeps!

The press got wind of the matter are reported as follows:

“After much discussion (which went hard against the legal gentlemen
present) Mr. Irvine consented to take charge of the case (instructed by
Mr Sherrie). Counsel stated that the assignment of an advocate was very
 short notice in a case where a man was on his trial for his life, but that
he would undertake it in accordance with his Lordship’s directions.”

The Attorney General, who prosecuted for the first time in the
case, presented the Jury with the same infirmities as were urged on
the jury in the first trial -- that is, if they, the jury, had a doubt in
the matter, and if they could reconcile the evidence in accordance
with that doubt, then they might be satisfied in bringing in a verdict
of Manslaughter rather than murder. But this tack had failed in the
first trial and now, for the second time, the jury repudiated any
finding of guilt on the part of Laurence Smith.

Would the state come again?

The Third Trial

During the third trial the evidence, as one might have expected,
became a little more compelling. For one thing, the evidence was
much better rehearsed and , secondly, people began to realise not
only that murder -- however committed -- was not to be condoned
but that the state in having three prosecution-cases brought
against the defendant was desirous that they give their evidence
with a little more gusto.

Accordingly, Joseph Lough, the Dispensary doctor, gave

evidence of the elaborate wounds that caused Patrick Lynch’s
death. Thomas Cunningham recalled that he met Laurence that day
in a `great hurry`. He even enquired if he had seen the ‘Yankee’
pass on the road. And Rose Making, who knew Laurence well, came
forward with the most damning testimony. She said actually saw
Laurence striking the ‘Yankee ‘with a stick. It happened right beside
her house.She continued:

" Lynch was stupid drunk. I saw the prisoner. He went off on the moment
when I shouted. Lynch was taken up and laid on a cart till he came to. I
washed blood off his temple, the prisoner had a stick. I saw him give
Lynch a blow about the head. His head was cut. The day Lynch was killed
I saw prisoner in my own house in the evening. I did not see him coming
in. He was sitting there when I came in. He asked how I was. Lynch was
coming up, and the prisoner. In own house. It was not long till Lynch
came up. When I saw Lynch coming up he had a new pipe with him. I
said `I’ll shut the door, here’s Yankee Lynch’.
 The prisoner said: ‘ you need not... If he doesn’t meddle with me I’ll not
meddle with him’. Lynch then passed. I saw him, and I went out and
walked a bit of the way with him to convey him from the door. I came
back. The Prisoner was there.He left my house shortly after. It wasn’t
long. My daughter asked me to rest. He said he had to go home to
churn. I heard that he (Lynch) was killed in scarcely an hour after that. I
saw prisoner on the Tuesday evening before the deceased was killed. Mrs
Bradywas there. The Prisoner said: ‘Only for you Rose, the law would be
little trouble to the Yankee’ "

Thomas Smith, Laurence’s nephew, also took the stand to say

that on the day of the murder when he finished school, he tended
the cows, and on his way back from the fields he saw the prisoner
standing over the deceased, who was -- at this time -- flat on the
ground. Laurence asked him if there was any blood on his
(Laurence’s) stick. Thomas told him there was. Laurence then
directed him to `wash it off`.

Bernard Sexton who also saw the two men struggle with each
other couldn’t see the knife in ’Larry’s hand’, nor anything else
either.! When reminded that in the second trial he had already
testified that he saw Laurence beat the Yankee with his fist, he had
to take time to reconsider his evidence.

The Jury made a finding of Guilt against Laurence Smith and

accompanied it with a strong recommmendation to mercy.

Baron Dowse concurred both with the verdict and the

recommendation to mercy. And when the question of mercy arose
later, he duly wrote to the Lord Lieutenant as follows :
Dublin: 13th August 1873

‘... It is to be regretted that the following facts of the case, were not, as I
am informed communicated to your Excellency in the communication of
the 7th inst., and in the hope of affording such information connected
with this painful case as may yet enable your Excellency to see cause for
granting a reprieve.

The only circumstances that I can see in the case that render the
prisoner a proper object of mercy are his total or nearly total blindness,
and the possibility that the prisoner and the deceased may have come
into collision without premeditation on the part of the former. The
existence of ill-will on the part of the prisoner towards the deceased is
apparent. This ill-will may have led the prisoner to have quarreled with or
assaulted the deceased and in that quarrel the knife may have been used
 without any original intention on the part of the prisoner to have
recourse to so deadly a weapon.

Your Excellency will permit me to add that I am informed it would be

almost without precedent in British Law that a blind man should be
hanged no matter what the conviction against him, and that he should be
treated as an imbecile or lunatic according to the accusations made
against him.

The other points of evidence against Laurence Smith included

testimony to the effect that he had bought a knife from John
Connolly’s shop before the struggle with Patrick Lynch. The knife
bought was ‘similar’ to the knife found by Constable Phelan in a
bush just 170 yards from the prisoner’s house. Laurence Smith’s
trousers was bloodstained, as was a handkerchief examined by
Professor Reynolds. There were scratches on Laurence Smith’s
hand. Furthermore, contrary to the evidence in favour of Laurence’s
defense, Mrs Smith, his sister-in-law confessed that she remem-
bered the day of the murder -- but that, contrary to Laurence’s
evidence, there had been no churning done in the house that day.
And Edward McGauran, the 23rd witness confirmed it.

On August 16 1873 Laurence Smith was hanged in Cavan.

***

Index:

See Criminal Files, National Archives, Bishop Street, Dublin 8:

S-18-73

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballyjamesduff#Notable_Places_In_Ballyjamesduff

www.irelandoldnews.com/Other/1873/AUG.html

www.sierratel.com/colinf/genuki/cav/Castlerahan/Ballyjamesduff.html

www.archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/IRL-CAVAN/2006-03/1141608975
www.ulsterbiography.co.uk/biogsD.htm

www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/
memorable_dublin_houses/7.html

www.kennys.ie/Search_Results.aspx?profile=Books&keywords=Cavan+
%28irish+OR+ireland%29

You are visitor number