December 1875 – Whitewell Fire, Balloo Poaching & Drunkenness
Local News
Tragic Whitewell House Fire – Northern Whig 1st December 1875
The Northern Whig reported on 1st December on the inquest into a tragic house fire in Whitewell that resulted in the deaths of four children. Dr. Hume, district coroner in Whitewell, called Mary Kavanagh, the childrens mother, to give evidence. Weeping uncontrollably she said that she had left the four children Ellen, Catherine, Sarah and John (aged between 8 months and 6 years) at home when she went to the mountain to gather heather. She locked the children in the house for fear of them coming to harm in her absence given the proximity of the local quarry.
Although she normally extinguished the fire in the house before leaving, she did not do so on this occasion due to the extremely cold weather. While collecting heather, she heard shouts of her name and found the low thatched, two bedroom house was ablaze.
A neighbour, Susan Kennedy, reported that she saw smoke coming from the house but found the door locked with no response from the children when called. The windows were smoke-blackened. Retrieving a spade from the garden she broke open the door but found the flames and smoke so intense that she could not enter.
Constable Donaghy, stationed in Greencastle, attended the scene when notified of the fire but found the roof caved-in and debris smouldering. The remains of the young children were recovered shortly afterwards. In evidence, Dr. David Wilson of Whiteabbey said that he was of the opinion that the cause of death was suffocation due to the dense smoke.
When the Coroner summed up the evidence the jury, after deliberation returned the following verdict:-
“That the said Ellen M.Kavanagh, Catherine M’Kavanagh, Sarah M’Kavanagh, and John M’Kavanagh were accidentally suffocated, or burned to death, at Collinwood, in the parish of Carnmoney, on Monday, the 29th November, 1875; and the jury are unanimously of opinion that, as said children were locked in the house to keep them from a dangerous quarry which is near the house, where parties have previously been killed, said quarry is in a dangerous state, and ought to be paled round by the proprietor to protect the lives of people in the neighbourhood,”
Northern Whig 1st December 1875
Court News
Balloo Poaching and Shooting at the Police – Northern Whig 11th December 1875
At Crumlin (Special) Petty Sessions, Samuel Russell, Henry Mahaffey, and others, were summoned for having, on the night on the 21st November, entered Balloo with three others, for the purpose of taking and killing game, and later at Corbally, County Antrim discharging firearms at the persons of Head Constable Kerr, Sub-Constable Lafferty, and James Caulfield.
Head-Constable Kerr and Sub-Constable Lafferty, testified that, following reports of the poaching incident, they had proceeded to Corbally around 3am- 4am on the 21st November in pursuit of the suspected poachers.
On reaching Corbally, Sub-Constable Lafferty reported that he saw two men leaning against a boat. Noticing the policemen approaching, the men shouted, “Come on, boys. Stand, or we will shoot.” Immediately, three more men appeared on the scene. Four of the five men were armed. Threatening to shoot the two constables the men headed up the road and entered a field. Notwithstanding the threats, the head-constable and sub-constable followed the party, but after some time they got away.
Returning to the scene of the first encounter, the boat against which the two men were leaning was then examined, and two dead pheasants were found in it. The two policemen returned to Antrim, and, with the assistance of a car, they went to Crantown in company with some other police. (The reason for the Crantown destination was not disclosed).
On arriving at Crantown the sub-constable testified that he heard a shot, and saw two men enveloped in the smoke of the gun. One of the men was armed with a gun.
The two men ran off, but were followed. When running, one of them took his gun and put it in a drain. Sub-Constable Lafferty stopped to pick it up The gun had the appearance of having been recently discharged. Lafferty arrested Samuel Russell who was in a pigsty close to the place where the gun was dropped. Although he could not say with certainty whether or not he saw Russell at the earlier encounter, he took the accused’s clothes as potential evidence. (The other men escaped into the night).
Examining the pocket of Russell’s coat, he found a shot-bag (he produced this in court). There was shot in it. A small box of caps was also found in some of the pockets of Russell’s clothes. Russell was cautioned after the arrest by the head-constable, who said to him, “You are the man who presented the gun at me this morning.“
Russell simply replied that it was well no-one was shot. It was noted that Russell’s boots, trousers, and gaiters were wet and dirty, and the skirt of his coat was sparked with mud and wet. There was blood on his face, as if it had been scratched, and his nose was bleeding. The constables noted that his socks were very wet.
Henry Mahaffey was also arrested that morning in Russell’s father’s house. Sub-Constable Lafferty found a coat in Mahaffey’s house on the morning in question. It was at the time quite wet and dirty, and in one of the pockets he found a shot-bag (again produced in court). He examined the shot found in Mahaffey’s clothes and compared it with that got in Russell’s, and found they were both the same number. Lafferty believed that he saw the coat he found in Mahaffey’s house worn by one of the parties at the boat that morning.
Meanwhile the head-constable seized a double-barrelled gun in Mahaffey’s that morning, and it had the appearance of having been recently discharged. It was charged, and the shot in it was taken out and examined. It corresponded with the shot found on the prisoners. He could not say whether the guns he saw at Corbally were single or double-barrelled, but some of them looked larger than others.
Sub-Constable M’Closkey testified to examining a potato field at Corbally on the 21st of November, finding large footprints in the field. On examining the footprints he identified the impression of seven nail marks in the centre of the footprint, and there were three rows of nail marks in the boots at the outside, and one down the centre. He got a piece of paper and made the marks on it. He compared those marks and other measurements he took with the boots one of the defendants wore, and they exactly corresponded.
Defending the accused, Mr. McMordie said although there were very grave charges made against the defendants, he was not convinced that the provided evidence constituted sufficient evidence for trial with nothing really tying the defendants to the crimes.
The magistrates retired to consider the evidence, returning in a short time to announce that they had agreed to send the case for trial to the Belfast Quarter Sessions. Bail was set at £80 with the two defendants offering sureties in £50 each.
Insubordinate Conduct in the Workhouse – Northern Whig 2nd December 1875
Eliza Porter was brought up in custody, charged with insubordinate conduct in the Union Workhouse, and assaulting some of the officials. Mr. Coates was the prosecution witness. After hearing the evidence, Mr. O’Donnell said that order must be preserved in such a large establishment as the Union Workhouse, and sent the prisoner to jail for two months.
Letters to the Editor/ Opinion
Justice of the seats?
TO THE EDITOR “OF THE NORTHERN WHIG.
SIR,
Being desirous of hearing the now celebrated “Jubilee Singers,” I purchased six balcony reserved tickets for myself and friends, and, in due course, repaired to the Ulster Hall last evening, when, much to my surprise, I found two of my seats occupied by a gentleman who is, I understand, a magistrate and his wife.
Believing that I had nothing to do but produce my tickets (which were both numbered and reserved), and politely request the gentleman to move, I did so, when this “justice” in question bluntly, if not impertinently, refused to leave.
I then called in one of the officials or managers of the entertainment, who also asked that I might be accorded my seats, and who got a similar reply from this dignified magistrate.
I would, therefore, suggest to the managers of Ulster Hall entertainments in future the propriety of having a few members of the “Royal Irish” at hand, in order to teach even refractory ” justices” to understand that they cannot take possession of other people’s property with impunity, or set aside all laws of order with defiance.Yours, &c., CITIZEN. Northern Whig 1st December 1875
“Pretty Parvenues” – Northern Whig 1st December 1875
The 1st of December saw the Northern Whig reproduce an article from the Saturday Review offering advice to parvenues on the best way to pass themselves off in their new position in Society. (A “parvenue” is a person who is a newcomer to a high-ranking socio-economic class – the word is borrowed from the French verb parvenir defined as “to arrive”). A number of Dos & Don’ts are outlined to help these newcomers gain acceptance in their unaccustomed position.
Don’ts
The ‘pretty parvenue‘ must ignore the advice of well-meaning friends who suggest the importance of maintaining a degree of coolness or indifference in company, stressing that she must remain calm no matter what the the circumstances. The author notes that “this advice, acted on by a pretty little parvenue of a naturally cold and selfish nature, is very apt to degenerate into what may very fairly be called insolence”.
Behaviours likely to arise from this detached attitude could have a serious impact on her reputation among the polite society. Typical faux pas include:
- Society demands that she will dine with people whom she does not like and, on occasion, with people whose social position is not much greater than hers. Under no circumstances must she determine that these fellow diners are not sufficiently above her own to command her respect. Such a conclusion is sure to make enemies.
- Arriving late for dinner, and finding every one waiting, “she scarcely apologises, but seems to expect her hostess to be much obliged to her for remembering to come at all”.
- Deciding that the gentleman sitting next to her at dinner is not a person of sufficient importance for her to impress, she may not bother to respond to his polite attempts at conversation instead leaning back in her chair looking inexpressibly bored.
- She eats her food as if it were nasty, and drinks her wine as if it were medicine.
- She leaves as early as possible, taking care not to speak to any of the people who she knows were asked to meet her. Even worse, she may make “no attempt to conceal how glad she is that the entertainment is over, and how much better pleased she would have been to have spent the evening elsewhere”.
- Even worse, when she gives a return dinner her behaviour as hostess is no better than it was as guest. She will invite a large party and not think it in the least necessary to be in the drawing-room when they arrive. She will not attempt any apology for her late appearance, but say with lofty indifference that she expects dinner to be ready some time.
- Barely acknowledging the ladies who have honoured her with their presence this ill-educated parvenue “will go and flirt languidly with some man who has made himself remarkable in society, and whom she has captured for her party”.
- On announcement of dinner she will ignore her husbands directions on seating arrangements, preferring to sit next to the person most likely to amuse her – leaving the old gentleman who was supposed to sit beside her to find alternative company.
- Unaccustomed to entertaining properly, this “insolent hostess does not see when things are going wrong, and, if she did, would pretend not to do so, and would not try to remedy them, except by scolding… Her idea of fine manners seems to be to sit still and let people take care of themselves.
- She makes no attempt to introduce her guests to each other, or to get them to enjoy themselves. She has done them sufficient honour in allowing them to come and see how she is dressed, and how her rooms are decorated.
- This objectionable parvenue spends her time in the company of people likely to advance her in society “and never hesitates to kick away the ladder by which she has risen. Apparently she would do the same by her husband if she thought it expedient“
The damning conclusion is that such “parvenues make bad housekeepers from ignorance, and bad mistresses from haughtiness”.
Do’s
Praise, then, is reserved for the “good-natured young parvenue” who uses her position to demonstrate her hospitality and generous nature.
- This young lady may enjoy the company of esteemed company on charity committees but she does not forget her own poor relations.
- Her friends at twenty are her friends at fifty, and she does not attempt to conceal who her parents were.
- “Her voice may be loud, but it says kindly things. Her manner may be a little coarse, but it is better than selfish indifference; her beauty may be of a vulgar order, but she is neither painted nor whitened”.
- “She may dress in sky-blue and scarlet, but she would give away her cloak to any one in need of it.”
Degrees of Drunkenness – Northern Whig 3rd December 1875
According to the Leeds Mercury, the stipendiary magistrate for the borough of Leeds, Mr Bruce, generated much discussion following the prosecution of a publican for allowing drunkenness in his house.
The issue, said Mr Bruce, was that witnesses offered many curious definitions in such cases on the word “drunk.” What then, mused Mr Bruce, is the stage that constitutes prosecutable drunkenness?
The difficulty, no doubt, arises from the fact that drunkenness is really a question of degree. The “Imperial Dictionary” defines the word “drunk” to be “overwhelmed or overpowered by spirituous liquor; stupefied or inflamed by the action of spirit on the stomach and brain ;” and “drunkenness as “a state in which a person is overwhelmed or overpowered with spirituous liquors, so that his reason is disordered, and he reels or staggers in walking.”
Mr Bruce, Magistrate for the borough of Leeds
Mr Bruce suggested therefore that “drunkenness” is that stage of inebriation when the balance of voluntary control is disturbed, not necessarily the stage when the power of volition is altogether gone, or when the mind loses the sense of responsibility.
No doubt people may go on drinking until they become helpless and unconscious, but this final stage is only reached after the exaltation which is more generally known as drunkenness has been passed. It is the first rather than the last with which the law deals.
The man who is “dead drunk” has made a beast of himself, but he is harmless. It is the man who has just reached the stage of exaltation that becomes the noisy, quarrelsome, offensive customer, against whom publicans are warned; and though it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say positively when the process of inebriation has reached the stage in which the drinker is first “overwhelmed or overpowered,” practically there is no difficulty in saying when a man has reached the stage which is vulgarly known as drunkenness.
Taking this as a definition, he suggests that it is a simple matter to tell when a man is drunk. A landlord is not punished because his customers talk rather fast, or because they sing boisterous songs, but because he serves them with drink until their reason has become disordered.
The definition of “drunk” is therefore settled in Mr Bruce’s mind.
Other News
Tying the Knot, Losing the Ring – Northern Whig 7th December 1875
On the 7th December 1875 the Northern Whig reported on an awkward incident at a London wedding.
Reports reveal that the bridegroom, a very nervous young man, put the wedding ring into his mouth for a moment while he frantically tried to pull off his gloves…
“In his flurry and excitement, as the moment for pledging his troth came more and more awfully near, he opened his mouth for a gasp or a sigh, I cannot say which, and, hey, presto! the ring slipped down his throat as if by magic.
For one brief moment his face assumed a hue so appallingly suggestive of apoplexy that the bride fainted. After a desperate struggle the ring went down instead of coming up, and the ceremony came to an abrupt stop.”
The reporter, seemingly of less-than-charitable disposition, concluded the report:
I regret to say that, in defiance of this solemn warning, the reckless couple insisted upon rushing on their fate, and after bride and bridegroom had recovered, and another ring had been lent by some malignant misanthrope, of whom there are always one or two officiously active on occasions of this sort, the knot was tied.
Link to Previous Monthly News
Previous monthly news stories can be viewed here Monthly News of 150 Years Ago
Help Us Find New Readers
Belfast Entries is hobby website produced entirely by a retired husband & wife featuring articles on our shared history, memories and entertaining stories of our past. The stories are free to all. If you like our posts please help us to grow our readership by sharing the posts. A growing readership would be very much appreciated.
If you enjoy Belfast Entries please consider a small donation
If you wish to To help us meet website creation/ maintenance costs please click the coffee cup below to learn how to make a small donation. Please note that every contribution is valued and that we will acknowledge your contribution below (forename only or “Anonymous” if you prefer).
Donations this month 3
Thank you Damian
Thank you Sinead
Thank you R. Meharg
We had 2 donation last month.
Copyright Notice
Belfast Entries posts & photos are our intellectual property and copyrighted to us. Where we use photos that do not belong to us, it is because we believe them to be in the public domain or shared under a Creative Commons licence with appropriate attribution. None of our content or images can be used without our consent. Note that a link to our Copyright & Takedown notice is included in the website footer on all pages.
0 Comments