CIVIL WAR IN
MAYO AND SLIGO
---------------------------------
STIRRING
INCIDENTS RECALLED
---------------------------------
BALLINA
LIBEL ACTION
---------------------------------
CAPTURE OF
FREE-STATE RECRUITS
AT DROMORE
WEST
--------------------------------
INNER STORY
OF EVENTS: TWO TRADERS WHO FELL OUT; £5,000 DAMAGES CLAIMED
--------------------------------
A LETTER THE
"WESTERN PEOPLE" REJECTED
LEADS TO BIG
LAW SUIT
-------------------------------
COUNSEL'S
REMINESCENCES
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Special
"Western People" Report, December 5, 1925)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
W
|
HEN a libel action by Mr. John Moylett, P.C., King Street, Ballina,
against Mr. Thomas Foy, Merchant, King Street, Ballina, and Mr. James Duncan,
the proprietor of the "Ballina Herald," for £5,000 damages for libel,
came on for hearing at the High Court, Dublin Castle, on Monday morning before
Justice Hanna and a special jury there was a big muster of members of the legal
profession, who, seated in three benches--some thirty K.C.s and B.L.s in
all--followed the case with interest.
Mr. J.
M. Fitzgerald, K.C.; Mr. James
Geoghegan, K.C., and Mr. Charles
Bewley, B.L. (instructed by Mr.
Francis Kennedy), were for the plaintiff. Mr. P. Lynch, K.C.; Mr.
Leonard, K.C., and Mr. Cecil Lavery (instructed by Messrs. Bourke and Carrigg, Ballina), were for the defendant, Mr. Thomas Foy; and Mr. W.
G. Carson, K.C., and Mr. Cahir
Davitt, B.L. (also instructed by Messrs. Bourke and Carrigg), were for Mr. James Duncan, the second defendant.
Mr. Bewley, in opening the pleadings, said
the action was for libel. The action was for damages for that the defendant,
Thomas Foy, falsely and maliciously wrote, and James Duncan maliciously
published in the "Ballina
Herald" of the 23rd April, 1926, a letter. The libel was contained in
the following portion of the letter:-- "About the month of June, 1922,
when the Republicans were in occupation of the town of Ballina, and when the
Free State troops were expected in the district, Mr. John Moylett, of this town,
sent an order to me to give my lorry to a man named Munnelly to take some men
to Dromore West workhouse (then evacuated by the Republicans), and Mr. Moylett
guaranteed to pay for the lorry. the lorry was sent on this undertaking and
guarantee, and it then transpired that the men taken to Dromore West on my
lorry were Free State troops. Immediately these troops arrived they were
attacked and forced to withdraw. The person in charge, and known in the town at
the time as the D.I., was a man named Boyd, brother-in-law of Mr. Moylett. The
Free State troops in going to Dromore West, as they did, evidently feel or were
brought into a trap--but that is ancient history. Possessed as I was with Mr.
Moylett's order, and his brother-in-law, the D.I. in charge of the Republicans
in town at the time, I publicly stated my mind as to what I considered unfair
tactics."
The said words meant, and were intended to
mean, the plaintiff alleged, that the plaintiff had committed a criminal
offence, namely, that he had brought, or caused to be brought, members of the
National forces of Saorstat Eireann into a trap or ambush, and was guilty of
conspiring with Mr. Boyd and other persons to levy war against the Government
of Saorstat Eireann, and to murder the aforesaid members of the National
forces, and of levying war against the Government. Plaintiff alleged that in
consequence he had been greatly injured in his credit and reputation.
Mr. Fitzgerald, K.C., in opening the
plaintiff's case, said if the words meant what they alleged they meant--that
John Moylett conspired with his brother-in-law to lead the troops into an
ambush--it was about the most serious charge that could be alleged against any
man who had to carry on his business in any part of the country. Not only was
that libel charge made with without any provocation, but it was persisted in up
to the present time, because even now as it stood the defendant's case was
apparently that the libel, so far as it purported to state facts, stated facts
that were true. Mr. Moylett had been kept waiting for three years before these
charges were made against him by Mr. Foy. Both the plaintiff and Mr. Foy, the
defendant, were substantial business men in the town of Ballina. this event
began in the year 1922, when the country was in the throes of civil war. the
ambush that was spoken of in the libel was an ambush that occurred immediately
before the breaking out of hostilities between the two parties--the Free State
and Irish Republican supporters. the jury could imagine the plight of the
people of the town of Ballina at the time, on the borers of the
WILDEST PART OF COUNTY MAYO.
There was presented to the people of Ballina
at the time a very difficult proposition. They had to choose between whether
they would support what they conceived to be the means towards settled
government by supporting the Free State or throw in their lot with those who
professed the more ideal policy of setting up an Irish Republic. "We in
Dublin," said counsel, "could have little idea of the horrible
proposition that was in Ballina, because we in Dublin never realised it."
Immediately that proposition was presented to the people, counsel went on, his
client took the stand he had always taken, of by every means in his power
supporting the struggle of the Free State to establish settled government in
the country. He gave his money and spent his time in doing it. Everyone was
entitled to stand out of a struggle. Mr. Foy took no part in that struggle. He
BLESSED NOR CURSED EITHER SIDE,
but
was apparently content to deal with either side, and in the letter they would
find he supported either side indiscriminately. He was entitled to do that, but
he was not entitled to make suggestions in the public Press that the men who
gave his money and his time in support of the Free State Government was all the
time a traitor, giving information to his own relatives. In the year 1922, if
this were true, his life would not have been safe for two hours. The facts with
regard to the lorry were that Mr. Moylett had been since the date of the Treaty
a well-known supporter of the Free State cause. A Free State officer, Lieut.
Munnelly, came to Ballina to recruit troops, and found himself with a draft of
95 unarmed recruits that he had to transfer to Sligo, or somewhere near it, and
had to get a lorry. The only man he knew as a staunch supporter of the Free
State cause that he could go to was Mr. Moylett. and got from him a note or
document to give to Mr. Foy. That was a note asking him to give his lorry on
hire to the National Army. Mr. Munnelly was not known to Mr. Foy himself. Armed
with that document, Mr. Munnelly went to Mr. Foy and got the lorry and fifteen
or twenty men were put into it. Having got to Dromore West, they were
apparently attacked by some Republican forces in the district, who took the
lorry. No personal injuries were caused, because the men in the lorry were unarmed.
Mr. Moylett had no more to do with the attack on the lorry than the jury had,
and he did not hear of it until some days afterwards. He was the last man in
the world who could have had any act or part in the attack on the lorry. He had
at that time in the town two brothers-in-law, and he was not responsible for
the fact that his brothers-in-law were
OUTSPOKEN REPUBLICANS,
and
were on terms of hostility to him for several months before. Neither of these
two boys had anything to do with the ambush, because they were not soldiers in
the Republican Army at the time. After the triumph of the Free State forces and
the defeat of the Republicans, Mr. Foy never breathed a word against Mr.
Moylett; but apparently Mr. Foy lost the Free State contract for supplies somewhere
in the Spring of 1923, and Mr. Moylett, on tender, got some of the. Apparently
from the moment Mr. Moylett became a contractor to the Free State forces Mr.
Foy's suspicions began, because almost immediately he started an action before
the Co. Court Judge against Mr. Moylett for the hire of the lorry, alleging he
never lent it to the Free State army at all, but solely to Mr. Moylett. That
action was dismissed. An appeal was brought before Mr. Commissioner Swayne, who
also dismissed it, and three weeks after the final dismissal Mr. Foy wrote this
letter, dated 17th April. From that date it was apparent Mr. Foy had the letter
ready for some time before going with it to the "Ballina Herald."
There was a better known paper in Ballina, the "Western People," the
leading paper in the county, edited by a very well known and experienced
journalist, Mr. Frederick V. Devere.
Mr. Foy first consulted the editor of the "Western people" into whose
paper he wanted to get his letter, but Mr. Devere, being an experienced
journalist, before he read ten lines of it rejected it, sent it back to Mr. Foy
and told him he could not publish it. It was brought back to Mr. Foy by a Mr. Matthew Farrell, who apparently at
the time was a kind of secretary or confidential clerk to Mr. Foy, and was a
man who apparently felt he was experienced in legal matters because he had been
a law clerk. Mr. Farrell brought back the letter and said Mr. Foy wished to have
it published, and if legal proceedings were taken Mr. Foy would give the
"Western People" an indemnity for its costs. That was a nice
transaction for an honest man like Mr. Foy, when they him, in the first
instance, going to the most respectable paper he could find to spread the
libel! But Mr. Devere very properly said indemnity or no indemnity it would not
be published in the "Western People"; and then it was taken to Mr.
Duncan, the proprietor and owner of the "Ballina Herald." From that
date they found the two defendants bracketed together, because the jury might
be assure as they were in the box that Mr. Duncan had got an indemnity that Mr.
Devere refused, and the two defendants were apparently one. If there was one
thing more than another truth in that letter it was the statement that one had
to pay for his education, and he hoped one result of that would be that Mr.
Foy, and possibly Mr. Duncan, would have to be educated as to what was common
decency in the town of Ballina. Mr. Moylett on 19th may had a letter written to
the two defendants calling upon them to make some amends for their conduct. the
answer in both cases was similar--a letter from Messrs. Bourke and Carrigg
stating they were instructed by both defendants to accept service of a writ of summons
on their behalf.
THE PLAINTIFF
Evidence was then called.
Mr. John Moylett, the
plaintiff, in reply to Mr. Geoghegan, K.C., said he and his partners had been
carrying on business for 24 years, and he was a Harbour Commissioner for
Ballina and a Peace Commissioner for the Co. Mayo. He received a copy of the
"Ballina Herald" containing the letter on 23rd, April, 1925, and read
the reference in that about the ambush. He had no hand, act, or part in that
ambush or trap. He knew nothing whatever to do with the tactics of the
Republicans. He was confined to his house when Lieut. Munnelly of the Free State Army came to him, and he signed a
document to be given to Mr. Foy. Witness knew Mr. Munnelly to be an old Sinn
Fein volunteer, and at this time a Mr.
Waters was in charge of recruiting. Mr. Munnelly was trying to persuade the
Volunteers to join the National Army. Witness was at that time connected with
the recruiting for the National Army, and in trying to induce members of the
Volunteers to remain faithful to the majority in Dail Eireann,. Alexander Boyd
was witness's wife's brother, and at this time witness tried to get the two
Boyds to go to Galway to the National Army, and as soon as the split came he
and his brothers-in-law were on opposite sides. In October, 1923, he was sued
by the defendant in respect of the lorry, and Judge Doyle dismissed the civil
bill. There was an appeal and a dismiss by Mr. Commissioner Swayne in April,
1923. From June, 1923a, until the civil bill was issued Mr. Foy said nothing to
him about the lorry. Witness became a contractor to the Free State troops in,
he thought, 1923, and was a co0ontractor up to the present. Several customers
had spoken to him about the letter in his shop. Witness's son was in the
National Army from shortly after the split until the end of the trouble.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lynch, witness said he
lived in what used to be the Sinn Fein Hall until it was closed up by the
British military. His sisters-in-law did not live with him, but came occasionally.
Alex Boyd did not live in the house, and witness did not remember him ever
having slept in his house. Witness 'broke squares' with him when witness
ordered Boyd and his brother out of the house because he would not taken sides
with the Treaty. Witness was a whole-hearted supporter of the Free State up to
the present day. Before the Free State troops took possession of the town it
was altogether in the possession of the Irregulars. His brother-in-law, Alex Boyd, was prominently identified
with the Irregulars from June, 1922, and was in charge of them at the old
police barrack at Ballina for a time, but as far as he knew Patrick was not in
Ballina. He supposed his sisters-in-law were prominent members of the Cumann na mBan, but he did not know
they were acting as emissaries or
MESSENGERS FOR THE IRREGULARS
in
1923. Mr. Theobald Hanley was Adjutant
of the Free State forces in Ballina. He could not remember that Mr. Hanley
wrote to him requesting that his sisters-in-law should leave his house and the
Ballina district, but he told him so. As a result of that conversation witness
told the girls to leave the house and not to be seen there again. Mr. Hanley
said it was dangerous for them to be knocking about as they were suspected of
carrying messages to the Irregulars.
After that the girls used to come in and out. On 29th July the Free
State troops took possession of the town, and Alex Boyd and his associates
burned the police barrack. The Irregulars came back again and took the town.
Witness was then unwell and was unable to be out. Mr. P. J. Ruttledge,
T.D., and Mr. Sean Kilcullen, were,
he heard, in charge of the Irregulars on the day they took the town. They were
not in his house as far as he knew, and it was false--an absolute lie--to say
that he went out and shook hands with them. He did not see Mr. Theo Hanley a
prisoner in a military lorry outside his house. He look out and saw an armoured
car outside Mr. Hanley's shop and witness's were looted on 12th September when
the irregulars came in, and there was a machine gun turned on Hanley's shop. He
thought there was only one shot fired into Hanley's, and this was before it was
looted. Witness swore his own shop was also looted, and he was threatened. At 3
o'clock the following morning the Irregulars left the town, and the Free State
troops were in occupation of the town. General Ring of the Free State army was
killed outside Ballina. Witness did not hear that Foy's shop was looted on 12th
September of over £10 worth of goods. Hanley's, Coolican's and witness's houses
were the only ones he heard were looted on 12th September.
The Judge asked if the Irregulars had given
witness an order for what they had taken, and witness answered that he heard
written orders were given to all shops that were looted. He remembered Mr.
Bannon being in charge of the troops at Ballina, and the first time he saw him
was about six weeks after the troops came to the town. There was a lot of
complaints as to the conduct of the contracts for the army, and witness asked
Comdt. Bannon how it was that one house was getting all the business, and said
there were people in town as much entitled to the contracts as Mr. Hanley's
brothers. Witness said the people in sympathy with them should get
consideration, and that there was an election coming on. Theobald Hanley and
Comdt. Bannon had an interview with witness in his own house, and the latter
asked him to became a contractor. Witness did not say he was supplying
THE BOYS ON THE HILLS,
and
that they were the right army. That was a pure invention. Witness had given an
order to Munnelly on Foy for the lorry, and in that he said it was for the use
of G.H.Q., Athlone. Witness did not know where the lorry was going. He did not
know that Alex Boyd and his sister, one of the girls he put out of the house,
were in Dromore on the night the lorry was taken. Before the split witness supplied
the people in the barracks with goods, but one the split occurred he supplied
none except what was taken at the point of a revolver.
Do you deny you canvassed at the last
election for the Republican candidate against Mr. Tierney?--I do deny it.
You asked no one to vote for Derrig against Tierney?--That's politics, and a recent affair. We don't know who
we will be canvassing for, my lord, before we are much older (laughter).
His Lordship--Perhaps you are a bit of
prophet (laughter).
Witness, further cross-examined, said he
heard Mr. Foy's arrest and went and saw his shop closed. He went to ask the
cause of his arrest. He did not know whether he saw Mr. Foy that evening after
this release, and did not say as he passed the door, "Now you are getting
it." He sympathised with Mr. Foy and said it was disgraceful to arrest him
Witness warned his sisters-in-law against getting him into trouble. Patrick Boyd was arrested by the Free
State troops and witness went up to the workhouse barrack to get him released,
as he did in many cases. He saw Lieut.
Cox and, he thought, Mr. Hanley. He did not know whether he said if he got
Patrick Boyd released he would get him to act as Intelligence Officer for the
Free State--but he was sure he did not say it. He thought the lorry incident
was in preparation for the Galway conference. He did not say if Pat was let out
he would arrange to have Alex at his house some night. He was never on bad
terms with Mr. Foy, and was never put out of his shop in connection with an
argument about Mr. Joseph Devlin. He did not remember saying something about
Mr. Devlin that led to a row. He did not call Mr. Devlin a
BRITISH GOVERNMENT SPY
In December, 1922, witness was at a dinner in
the Imperial Hotel, Ballina, where General Lawlor was, and was not put out
or asked to withdraw by General Lawlor on account of his offensive remarks
about the National Army. Witness paid a big part of the cost of that
entertainment. He made a complaint in September, 1922, about the ambushing of
his vans and the taking of the stuff by the Irregulars three or four times on
the Enniscrone road. He did not know where Alex Boyd was operating. Stuff was
taken from their vans on every road from Ballina. It might be that Mr. Bannon,
on his making the complaint, sent out and met witness's van coming in with the
driver and witness's son, but they did not say that the van had not been
ambushed. There was a meeting of the van owners in Ballina, called by Mr.
Bannon, in 1922, and it was attended by witness's brother, and his brother told
him all vans were prevented from going out. Witness's firm were bakers, and had
to send out the vans in defiance of it.
His sisters-in-laws' home was at Ballysokeery, about six miles from Ballina. He
had no knowledge that his sister-in-law and Alex Boyd, her brother, were in
Dromore West with Mr. Ruttledge and the others, nor that every road was mined.
Witness got a letter from Mr. Foy, in which he stated that he was preparing an
account for a claim, and asking for payment of £17 13s. for the use of the
lorry, as he was advised it would be best for him to pay and get a receipt from
witness. Witness was also applied to by Kemps. He did not offer to £9 10s. On
3rd June, 1922, witness did not know whether there was any fighting but he knew
the outbreak did not take place until after the attack on the Four Court. The
first part of the firing was 4th March at Castlebar, he thought. From 29th
July, 1922, to 31st December, 1922, they did not supply goods to the Free State
troops. He put in a claim for Co. Sligo for goods seized by the Irregulars, but
did not think it was dealt with yet.
To Mr. Geoghegan, the witness said the troops
in the barracks, up to the time of the split were lawful troops, and he
supplied them with goods, but he never supplied them with goods after the
split. He could not say when Mr. Hanley became Adjutant at Ballina, but it was
after the National Army came into Ballina. officers of the National Army in
Ballina had come to him for advice and guidance.
His Lordship--In 1922 what did you, except
take a contract, do in support of the Free State?--All I could, my lord.
Why, asked the Judge, was the civil bill
dismissed?
Mr. Fitzgerald said it was on the grounds
that plaintiff was an agent, and that there had been no failure or refusal by
the principal to pay.
LIEUT. MUNNELLY
Mr.
William Munnelly, in reply to Mr. Fitzgerald, said he was a lieutenant in
the National Army in June, 1922, and was in Ballina in that year. He was doing
recruiting and organisation in the district, his headquarters being in Athlone.
On 3rd June, 1922, with Capt. Healy,
killed in the fighting afterwards, he had a number or recruits to be sent
off--95 in all. He knew the plaintiff as a supporter of the Free State and
National Army, and went to him to get a lorry to take the troops to Sligo. He
did not tell him the destination of the lorry, but got the order from Mr.
Moylett for Mr. Foy for a lorry to go to Foxford. He took the document to Mr.
Foy, and the lorry was sent by Mr. Foy with his own driver to Captain Healy. He was to meet Capt. Healy's detachment, but they did
not join him as arranged, and the men with Capt. Healy were captured. Witness
with his men went on to Sligo, and he returned to Ballina. During the whole of
the time he was there Mr. Moylett was publicly supporting the Free State.
To Mr. Leonard, he said at one period there
were two G.H.Q.'s at Athlone--one Free State and one irregular. Witness was
sent out as Lieutenant on recruiting work, and worked for six months, but since
there was no money coming out of it he threw up the rank and reverted to the
rank of sergeant. Some of the recruits he had were at Crossmolina and Ardagh,
and those Capt. Healy had were at Foxford. Witness went to Cooneal, and
ultimately to Crossmolina after giving the order for the lorry, and he
proceeded with the men to Sligo. they picked up Capt. Cawley's at Scott's,
of Ardagh. His lot went past Dromore West into Sligo. there was a party
supposed to be at Dromore West in charge of Captain Hanley, and witness was to
be challenged by a sentry, but as the sentry did not challenge him he went on
to Sligo. There was a fire on in Ballina, and the Irregulars were trying to put
it out, and witness's lorries were held up, as the hose was across the road.
They afterwards proceeded to Sligo. The Irregulars followed him from Ballina.
THE "WESTERN PEOPLE"
Mr. F.
V. Devere, Editor "Western People," in reply to Mr. Bewley, said
some time in April a letter was brought to the officer for publication by a Mr.
Farrell, who, he understood, was a bookkeeper employed by Mr. Foy. The letter
lay on his desk for a day or so before he had an opportunity of reading it, and
he read it when Mr. Farrell called a second time about it. Having read it, he
declined to publish it and handed it back to Mr. Farrell.
His Lordship said agency in Farrell had not
been proved. How was Foy connected with it?
Mr. Fitzgerald urged that it was, but the
Judge ruled against him.
Mr. Geoghegan asked the witness if a second
or amended letter was brought back by Mr. Farrell.
Again his Lordship intervened to say that
agency had not been established.
The witness said he had been dragged into the
case against his wishes.
Mr. Geoghegan asked the witness if had read
the letter as published in the "Ballina Herald," and he replied that
he had.
"What construction," asked Mr.
Geoghegan, "did you put upon the letter?"
"It was because of the construction I
put upon it, having read it originally, that I refused to publish it."
Mr. Geoghegan--What suggestion did it convey
to you?
Witness--That Mr. Moylett and his
brother-in-law, Boyd, had acted in collusion to lead the troops in the lorry
into a trap.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked the Judge for permission
to recall Mr. Devere at a later stage in the event of Mr. Farrell's agency
being established.
His Lordship gave this permission.
Mr. Oliver Jackson, Scurmore,
Enniscrone, deposed, in reply to Mr. Geoghegan to reading a copy of the letter
in the "Ballina Herald." It surprised him very much, as he understood
the letter meant Mr. Moylett had turned traitor to the Free State. He called
upon Mr. Moylett at his shop, and had a conversation with him.
Mr.
Harry Waters, in reply to Mr. Fitzgerald, said he was a staff officer in
the National Army. In April, 1922, he was gazetted 1st lieutenant. The Galway
Convention was held on the 22nd April, 1922, under the presidency of General O'Duffy. He had known the
plaintiff all his life, and since the start of the Sinn Fein movement he had
been associated with him, plaintiff being President and witness secretary.
After the Treaty plaintiff was President of the Treaty committee. In June there
was recruiting going on for the National Army, and witness was acting on the
instructions of General Collins, and
it was practically impossible to get funds from Dublin to carry on the work.
Plaintiff gave £67 to witness to carry on the work. Witness knew the Boyds.
Witness was constantly in touch with Mr. Moylett, but had nothing to do with
the Boyds. Alex and Pat Boyd were on the Irregular side. There was no meeting between the plaintiff and the
Boyds during the time of the trouble that he saw.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lynch, the witness said
he was in Ballina on 12th September, and was taken prisoner with Mr. Hanley.
They were put into a Ford car. that car did not stop at Mr. Moylett's. It was
Mr. Ruttledge and Mr. Kilcullen who took witness prisoner. His captors brought
him to say goodbye to his friends at his house. the car did not stop at
Moylett's.
When were you dismissed from the National
Army first?--I was not dismissed.
You were at Bonniconlon?--I was.
How many days after that were your services
dispensed with?--I was not dispensed with. I sent in my resignation.
His Lordship--Did you resign in '23 after the
split?--I resigned after the "ceasefire" order, my lord. On September
1st, 1922, I was appointed a staff captain in Claremorris.
His appointment as staff captain was by
General Simons, he said, and he was stationed in Ballina until 1st November
following, when he took up duty in Claremorris. His commanding officer on 12th
September was General Simons, and Staff-Lieut. Cox was in immediate command
over him. Commandant Bannon was in charge of the garrison in Ballina after 12th
September, but witness was belonging to the divisional staff at Claremorris.
Witness would contradict Mr. Hanley if he said they went into Moyletts' or that
they went to witness's house for any purpose other than to bid goodbye to his
friends. Witness left the army on 7th June, 1923. He and Mr. Moylett were close
friends.
Mr.
James Duncan, proprietor of the "Ballina Herald," and one of the
defendant, was called by Mr. Geoghegan at a witness. He was asked for the
original of the letter, but said he did not keep these documents. He received
the document from Mr. Farrell, the accredited agent of Mr. Foy, and published
it.
Mr. Lynch objected.
Witness, continuing, said the letter was a
typewritten one. He knew Mr. Farrell and believed he was in Mr. Foy's
employment. To the best of witness's recollection the signature was
typewritten, and there were no alterations in the letter. Mr. Foy had never
repudiated the letter. When he got the letter from Mr. Kennedy, solr., he let
Messrs. Bourke & Carrigg, who were Mr. Foy's solicitors, reply on his
behalf. Witness did not think he saw Mr. Foy before Messrs. Bourke &
Carrigg wrote the letter.
Did you ask Mr. Foy for any indemnity over
the publication of this letter? asked counsel.
Mr. Lynch objected,. and the Judge upheld the
objection.
To Mr.
Lavery, he said he had no malice or ill-will towards Mr. Moylett, but had
always been on friendly terms with him.
COMMANDANT HAUGHEY
Comdt.
John Haughey, Castlebar, deposed to Mr. Fitzgerald, that he took over
command of the troops in Ballina in April, 1923, from Comdt. Neary, and
remained there till March, 1924. He knew Mr. Moylett was a P.C. He was a
contractor for the army.
Judge--Did he do anything else for the Free
State? (loud laughter).
To Mr. Fitzgerald, he said Mr. Foy had then
no contracts for military supplies.
To Mr. Lynch, he said Lieut.-Gen. Sean O'Murthoile was Adjt.-General at this time and he
sanctioned all the contracts.
To the Judge, he said he often read speeches
in the paper by Mr. Moylett in support of the Free State.
To Mr. Lynch, he said he knew in the election
in August, 1923, Mr. Moylett made several speeches in support of the Treaty.
Captain
Fitzpatrick, Quarter-Master 4th Battn., said between April 1923, and March,
1924, he was stationed in Ballina. He had occasion to send despatches to
Belmullet, to which there was no railway.
"Is there not railway to
Belmullet?" asked the Judge in pretended surprise.
"No, my lord," said Mr. Leonard.
"It is a wild, uncultivated country (loud laughter, in which Mr. Carson, K.C., a Belmullet man,
joined).
The witness said he had got despatches on
food supplies to Belmullet and other places by Moyletts' vans.
Mr. Moylett, the plaintiff, was recalled by
permission of the Judge, and in reply to Mr. Geoghegan, said he provided a man
to carry despatches in his motor lorry to Belmullet, Swinford, Charlestown,
Foxford and every place there was a post. Witness took charge of the letters at
night and gave them to the man in the morning. He had spent about £100 in the
interests of the Free State between 1922 and 1923.
To Mr. Lynch, he said he did not refuse to
billet military in his house, but invited them in and showed them the rooms.
Mr.
Patrick Moylett, a member of the firm of Moylett's Stores, said he was in
Ballina about 24th or 26th June, 1922. Up to that time goods had been supplied
by them to the Republican police at the workhouse. On the date mentioned
witness refused to supply goods to the Republicans. That was the day side were
definitely taken in Ballina by Free Staters and Republicans.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
THE DEFENCE
Opening the case for the defence, Mr. Lynch,
K.C., said the case for the plaintiff had closed with a decorative witness, who
was produced to show that because he was a Free Stater it was all right for his
brother, the plaintiff. He was produced to make an impression on the jury,
because he carried on business in Dublin; but he had no more to say to that
case than to any other case from Ballina. This was an action for libel in
connection with a transaction that took place on 3rd June, 1922, and one important
fact had been stated by the last witness before he left the box--that was that
on 26th June was the date people took sides and these two parties fell apart
and fought with each other. Any defendant in an action for libel was a cockshot
for abuse and vituperation by counsel. Mr. Foy was the owner of a lorry, and
got a document asking that the lorry be supplied. On the evening of the 3rd
June this lorry passed through Ballina on its way to Dromore West with Capt.
Healy, the only man in uniform, in charge. The Republicans about Ballina,
seeing that the lorry passed or hearing it was to pass, immediately withdrew
from the vicinity of Ballina to the outlying districts, and those young men,
all unarmed, except Capt. Healy, who had a revolver, with three rounds of
ammunition, were surrounded by the whole Irregular or Republican force in Mayo,
and they captured 20 or 25 men. That took place at Dromore West, with Mr. Alex
Boyd one of the principal officers in charge of them and with Miss Boyd, his
sister, as aide-de-camp, or whatever she was (laughter). These 20 or 25 men,
most of whom were unarmed, were prisoners for 3 or 4 hours until they were
released and went to Sligo. But what did they find? Every road leading to
Dromore West out of which these men came that morning of the 4th June was
SOWN WITH LAND MINES,
and
you daren't approach the place, which had been captured by these men. They
found next day at the head of the column marching, Mr. Ruttledge, Mr. Alex
Boyd, and his sister, Miss Boyd. Mr. Hanley would be examined. He was not
adjutant until some time in July, 1922, but he was intelligence officer from
the end of May, acting in concert with the army which subsequently grew into
the Free State Army. As a result of his observations he called upon these two most
excellent visitors at the house of Mr. Moylett, asking them to retire to their
own domestic hearth, which was six miles away. They said they would not go
unless their brother-in-law turned them out. He was written to, but treated the
letter with contempt. That took place early in June. It was very likely these
men in the lorry were led into a trap. At all events Foy thought so. it was a
matter of opinion. He wrote a letter complaining of it. Alex Boyd tried to get
the lorry a few days afterwards, and because he did not get it he came with a
revolver, and he and his henchmen
SMASHED THE LORRY TO BITS,
because
they would not get it for the Republicans. Mr. Fitzgerald drew a picture about
the awful position in which the people in Ballina lived at the time. They all
appreciated it, but what would his friend (Mr. Fitzgerald) say about the
brother-in-law of his client, who went in and broke Mr. Foy's lorry five or six
days afterwards? A market day was the most important one in the week. Mr. Foy's
business house was closed on a market day, and he was arrested and brought to
the barrack, and after four hours' sojourn there, on his return plaintiff, who
was standing at his own door, said "Now, you are getting it, and it is
well you deserve it."
"When you are as long in the world as I
am," went on counsel--"And I hope most of you are not (laughter),
because you will have a lot of fun before you if you are younger (renewed
laughter)--you will come across a type of person whom you might have seen in
this country, and whom the Americans describe as the men who
HOPS ON THE BAND CAR.
"I had the time, but I never had
sufficient money to go to see America, but as I understand the man who hops on
the band car is when you have won an election and the band is playing, he jumps
up, hits you on the back and says: "My fine fellow, I knew you'd do
it" (loud laughter). This case reminds me of a book I read recently by a
French novelist, who made a lot of money during the war. A lot of old people
used to speak disrespectfully of him as being one of the nouveau riche. He
always succeeded in getting himself into a prominent place, and was put into
the Ministry for services rendered during the war--keeping his bakeries going
(loud laughter). He had all the contracts of the army. Moylett over again
(laughter). I hope he benefitted by it. He can put that on his escutcheon on
the medal--leather or otherwise--he is entitled to for his services during the
fight for freedom in this country (laughter). That is Moylett's contribution to
the freedom we now possess--that he supplied goods to the army from the cease
fire until the present time (laughter). Boyd burned the barracks and withdrew
his forces, and the Free Staters came into Ballina, and I can appreciate the
reception they got from a good many people who were
SITTING ON THE FENCE
up
to that time, and so they carried on in a more or less unstable equilibrium,
and on the 12th September that instability was rendered more pronounced by the
advent of the Republicans, who captured the town and kept it for 4 to 5 hours.
I will prove to you that on the 12th September, 1922, when Mr. Hanley, who was
bred, born, and reared in the same town as himself, was a prisoner in the
custody of the Republicans, Mr. Ruttledge and Mr. Seamus Kilcullen, that the
car was invited down to Mr. Moylett's. The prisoners were left outside in
charge of the Guard, and Ruttledge and Kilcullen went in and were duly feted by
Miss Boyd and the rest of them for an hour and a half. Then out came this man,
who says he was in bed, smilingly, to see them off with all the effusion that
would have done credit tot eh Eloquent Dempsey in the Abbey Theatre (laughter).
They took every piece of drapery in Hanley's shop away in open daylight, and
having looted the house, they
BLEW THE PLACE TO PIECES
with
machine guns, and Moylett, the blessed, is the fortunate proprietor of a house
that not one single shot hit that day. They blew up Hanley's, but this man, who
was a boiling Free Stater--they never put a shot through that. that shows what
the Republicans thought of Moylett, and whose side they thought he was on.
Unfortunately for those who their bit on the success of the Irregulars, their
stay was short-lived in Ballina, because next day the Free Staters came in, and
the others retired into the fastnesses of the mountains, and after two or three
days a conversation passed between Mr. Hanley and Sean Bannon, who was in
command of the troops, and as a result they went to Mr. Moylett's, and Hanley
introduced Mr. Bannon, and Bannon there and then, on 17th September, invited
this man to supply the Free State troops with food and necessaries of life.
What was his reply--this Free Stater? He says; "I won't supply you. I am
supplying the boys who are on the hills, and they are the right boys, and I
won't recognise ye." This is the Free Stater who wants damages now from a
Dublin jury, because it is suggested somebody gave away the information to Alex
Boyd and Ruttledge and the rest of them, who went 14 miles and captured the
lorry. It is only right to be fair, or try to be fair, to a witness in the box.
It strikes me it would hardly be fair to Mr. Moylett for me to get up and
denounce him as a man who did not supply and refused to supply the Free State
troops with food from July until December, 1922, without giving him the
opportunity of dealing with that question in the box. I put him that question
five times, and he would not answer it. He
TWISTED AND WRIGGLED AND DODGED,
and
tried every device that cleverality suggested to his mind. He strikes me as
being a most amazing study. A dinner is given to General Lawlor in the hotel. I
dare say you have often seen in earlier days at the theatre a species of drama
that I regret to say has ceased to be on the boards. Mr. Moylett's performance
reminds me of something I used to see in those days--plays of the kind we used
to have at the Queen's in those times--a type of persons who appeared, and
without any notice or apparent object or reason was prepared to do a side-step
on the stage (laughter). It seemed to be what the French call his metier. He
could do them with or without notice. There was a great similarity between
Moylett going into the dinner and the fellow at the queen's theatre. Of course,
early in the dinner he was all right. I dare say he didn't say much--the same
as a great many other people are--Don't expect me to say anything against
myself (loud laughter). It will demonstrate to you that just as he performed in
Foy's shop in September he performed in the hotel in December, because he had
to be ordered out of the room for the terms of contempt and disrespect in which
he spoke of the whole lot of them, from Lawlor down to the lowest recruit. Mr.
Lawlor said: "I think you had better retire." Counsel went on to deal
with the evidence. In April, 1923, there was a 'cease fire' order. "These
two people ceased to slaughter each other," and this was the time to look
for the contracts. Moylett complained that his vans were being robbed by the
Irregulars, but he did not anticipate Comdt. Bannon would do what he did--call
a meeting of the traders and order that no vans be sent out. Everybody obeyed
that order except Moylett. He sent out his vans, and they were captured, and
the goods were taken out of them, and his man came back again rejoicing or
smoking on the van that was emptied by the Irregulars. Plaintiff had to come to
Dublin for a solicitor to write these two letters to Foy and Duncan. "I
will ask you," said counsel, in conclusion, "to say that the
construction put on this document by Mr. Devere is a reasonable construction,
without the slightest doubt, that the lorry was led into a trap by somebody who
heard it from Moylett or somebody in association with him, and that is a
perfectly legitimate thing for this man, Foy, to say in the letter to the
paper."
MR. FOY'S EVIDENCE
Mr. Thomas Foy, the defendant,
examined by Mr. Leonard, told the jury that on Saturday, 3rd June, he got the
written order from Mr. Moylett, and his lorry went out, driven by his driver,
named Redmond. He saw his lorry driving through the town, and the lorry
returned between 2 and 8 o'clock in the morning. Redmond was now in British
Columbia. On Sunday witness was at Enniscrone, and saw a body of about 50 men
coming from the direction of Dromore West. They were prominent Irregulars--P.
J. Ruttledge, Alex Boyd, Kilcullen, Miss Boyd, and, he thought, some other
girls. On the following morning Alex Boyd, who was in charge of the town, came
to his shop, and witness showed him the order he had received from Mr. Moylett.
Boyd wanted to take the order away, an witness refused to give it.
Subsequently--about a week later--they came for his lorry, and witness said it
was out of order. they broke the lorry, and witness was brought to the
barracks. He was kept there about an hour. When he was returning Moylett said:
"Now, Tom, you are getting what you're long waiting for." Witness
replied: "There will come another day." Witness was offered £8 10s by
plaintiff for the hire of the lorry. He thought that was !/6d a mile, and he
asked 2/-. On the 12th September, when the Republicans took the town, they took
goods from his shop to the value of £106. They gave him no order for it. As far
as he saw there was no interference with Moyletts.
To the Judge, he said he claimed and got a
report for £106 for the goods and £113 for the lorry.
The hearing was adjourned at this stage until
Tuesday morning.
MR. FOY CROSS-EXAMINED
The hearing of the case was resumed on
Tuesday morning.
Mr. Foy, continuing his evidence, said after
the incident in June, 1922, plaintiff only came into his shop two or three
times, on one of which there was a row. Witness interfered. He heard plaintiff
say: "Joe Devlin was a British Government spy." Witness told him he
must get out, and had to shove him out. Witness knew Alex Boyd and the Miss
Boyds, and in 1923 he often saw them in his residence.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fitzgerald, he said the
allegation that Joe Devlin was a spy was made in July, 1922. Witness was 29
years in the street. They were on good terms up to 5th June, 1922, when
plaintiff asked him why did he give away the show about the order gave him--the
order for the lorry. Witness was quite naturally a kind of angry about that. He
knew the lorry was for the supporters of the Treaty, and that it was for
G.H.Q., Athlone. He sent Redmond, the driver, down to plaintiff's, and he got
his instructions from him. He did not remember seeing Mr. Munnelly at all, and
believed the order was handed in at the counter. This was witness's first
letter to the Press in Ballina. It was a typewritten letter, dictated by him to
the book-keeper, Matthew Farrell, who had been working for him for about four
years. He had been a solicitor's clerk. the signature at the end of the letter
was typewritten, and Mr. Farrell got instructions to take it down to the
"Western People" office, and it was taken back with the statement
that Mr. Devere would not publish it, that they were no compliment to witness.
He was not told the letter was libellous. Witness did not know whether Mr.
Farrell took the letter a second time to the "Western People" office,
but he did not sent Mr. Farrell down to offer an indemnity. Witness wrote this
letter because of the treatment he had got in court or from the Moyletts'
crowd. He could not shut his eyes to that Moylett
PLAYED A DIRTY TRICK ON HIM.
His lorry went to Dromore West, and they were
led into a trap, and the rumour was that it was by the Moyletts and the Boyds.
He saw the Boyd crowd taking part in it on the Sunday at Enniscrone. He
believed the Moyletts and Boyds got the lorry to entrap the troops, and said
so. On the morning of the 5th Alex Boyd, Jack Byron, Mick Byron and McHale came
in and asked him why he gave his lorry. Witness told Boyd it was his
brother-in-law, John Moylett, who gave them the lorry, and showed him the
order. Boyd asked for the order, but witness refused to give it. Moylett
afterwards came in and asked why he gave away the game. Witness was sore with
the courts about the way his case had been dealt with.
The Judge wanted to know why a decree had not
been given.
Mr. Fitzgerald said £8 10s. had been offered,
it appeared, and the surety and not the principal had been sued.
His Lordship said he should have got the £8
10s., then or a decree for the amount.
Mr. Fitzgerald submitted that a decree could
not have been given against a surety when the principal was not joined with
him.
Further cross-examined, the defendant said he
did not know Munnelly was a recruiting officer for the F.S. at the time he got
the lorry, and he did not know the plaintiff was identified with it. He would
not have been taken into anything, as he was playing a double game. He wanted
to have Moylett and Boyd punished for what they had done.
Who were the persons who brought the lorry
and the Free State troops into a trap? asked Mr. Fitzgeraqld.--Well, I say
Moylett was party to it, and everyone knew that.
What was the reason then for writing the
letter?--
FOR FEAR THEY WOULD FORGET IT.
(loud
laughter). to show I was straight and he was crooked.
Questioned as to what he considered the
unfair tactics, he said Moyletts and Boyds were running together to betray the
Free State troops. When Kevin O'Higgins at the last election came to Ballina he
could not hold a meeting outside Moylett's house. As to the public statement of
his views referred to in the letter, said he always stated it to people in his
shop and elsewhere. He said what Moylett and Boyd did was a treacherous
thing--and they might be in jail yet. He thought they ought to be all rammed
into jail, because witness
COULD NEVER FORGET 1922.
Witness's auditor and Kemps both sent out
accounts to Moylett for the lorry. Witness ceased to be a contractor on 2nd
February, 1923. An advertisement appeared inviting tenders, and witness sent
one and Moylett another. Witness got the contract, and there was a change made
by a new Quarter-Master who was put in, and it was taken from witness. He had
held the contract for two months and it was handed over to the plaintiff.
Witness was arrested and kept 3 or 4 hours in the barrack, and he lost a lot of
money on the sale of blue stone. In July when witness was coming from the
barrack, plaintiff jeered at him, and later that evening came into witness's
bar "half tore." On 3rd June he believed the parties were all one in
Ballina.
Ballina must be a happy place? queries Mr.
Fitzgerald. Are there many more like you there?
"Well," said the witness,
"there are other straight people there also" (laughter).
Further cross-examined, he said he was
anxious to have threshed out in court. He did not arrange beforehand that the
same solicitors should act for him and Duncan or that he would agree to pay the
damages for Duncan. That was at a later date.
His Lordship--Did you
AGREE TO STAND THE RACKET
for
Duncan?
Witness--I did, my lord.
His Lordship--Well, that is honest.
His Lordship asked defendant if he had a
hackney licence for his lorry, and he said it was not required at that time.
The lorry was brought back by his driver about 2.30 in the morning. It was in
his own place when it was destroyed. He knew the lorry was going on military
work to carry recruits to Dromore West.
MR. THEOBALD HANLEY
Mr. Theobald Hanley, examined
by Mr. Lynch, said he was in the Volunteers and I.R.A. afterwards, and in May,
1922, he was appointed Intelligence Officer by Col. McCabe of the Free State
Army for Easkey, Dromore West, Castleconnor and Ballina. He was then living in
Easkey. On 29th July, 1922, he was appointed Batt. Adjutant, to which he was
appointed at the Convention in April. He took up duties when the troops came to
Ballina. He knew Alex Boyd, who was D.I. of the Republican Police in Ballina,
and lived with his brother-in-law, Mr. Moylett, in June and July, until the
Free State troops came in. His sisters also lived with Mr. Moylett; their home
was about 6 miles away. Witness made a written communication to the two Miss
Boyds after 27th July, 1922, but they never answered. He went to see them, and
wrote to Mr. John Moylett saying he got instructions from General Lawlor to
have the two girls removed from his premises. that was on 30th July, and no
notice was taken of it. Witness went to see him, and he refused to interfere
with the girls. Subsequently witness again communicated with the girls. The
military decided to arrest the two young ladies, and they then left Ballina and
did not come back. Witness continued in Ballina until September. On 12th
September the place was taken by Irregular troops under the charge of Mr.
Ruttledge, Mr. Kilcullen and others. Witness was taken prisoner, and put into a
Ford ton truck with Harry Waters. there armed men in charge of them. the car
stopped outside plaintiff''s private house, and plaintiff, his wife, and the two miss Boyds came out. Mrs. Moylett
asked Mr. Ruttledge, Mr. Kilcullen, and a Mr. Ruane in to have tea. they went
in, and remained an hour and half. Witness was left outside. Mr. Moylett and
the two Miss Boyds came and
SHOOK HANDS WITH THE PARTY.
Harry Waters asked them up to his place to
have some refreshment. they went, and Waters and the party went in and remained
half an hour or three-quarters,. leaving witness outside in the car. They were
then taken to Bonniconlon, and next morning Waters was allowed to go on Mr.
O'Leary's car, witness being kept. A few days later witness was liberated by
General Simons, those in charge of him disappearing on Gen. Simons' approach.
Capt. Healy, who was in charge of the men who went to Dromore West, was killed
afterwards. Witness, a day or two after General Ring was killed, was in Ballina
with Comdt. Bannon. He brought Mr. Bannon to the plaintiff and introduced them.
That was on the 17th or 18th September. Comdt. Bannon told plaintiff he wanted
him to supply him with some food stuffs, and the plaintiff said he would not
supply them, that he was supplying one army in the hills, the right boys, and
that he would not recognise them. After witness came back he reported his
suspicions about Mr. Waters, and Comdt. Sent for him, took the revolver from
him, and dismissed him. this was about 10th October. Subsequently Mr. Waters
was employed in another area. Plaintiff reported to witness that his van had
been robbed near Foxford. Witness went out and met the van with plaintiff's son
and the driver on it. A meeting of the lorry owners was held, and an order was
made that the lorries should not be sent out. Everyone except plaintiff
complied.
Cross-examined, the witness said his brother,
Bernie, was in charge of the troops at Dromore West. Witness was adjutant at
the time Ballina was captured. He was not actually in charge that day.
Staff-Lieut. Cox and Lieut. Coyle were over him. the Miss Boyds continually
lived at plaintiff's house. He considered the ladies were a danger to the
State. He was Adjutant at Ballina when Foy had the contracts, and witness's
brother had the contract for drapery and butcher's meat. After the Dromore West
incident witness told Foy not to let his lorry out again with troops. Witness
was not responsible for giving out contracts. Witness did not know that Foy
gave his lorry to the Republicans. Any time it was taken after June, 1922, it
was taken by compulsion. Witness reported Moylett's refusal to supply food in
writing to the Col. Comdt. Witness knew Moylett sided with the Republicans in
the last two elections--in 1921 and 1925.
Witness heard Capt. Fitzpatrick swear plaintiff's van used to carry
despatches.
To Mr. Lynch, he said he heard on the evening
of the 3rd June of the capture of the lorry. He proceeded to Dromore West on
his bicycle, and he was satisfied the men were led into a trap. When on 14th
September witness returned to Ballina with the remains of General Ring he saw
his brothe's house looted and shot up, but saw no damage to the plaintiff's
house.
MR. SEAN BANNON
Mr.
Sean Bannon swore that in September, 1922, he was appointed O/C at Ballina,
and went to the plaintiff with Mr. Hanley to arrange for supplies for the
troops. Plaintiff said he would not supply foodstuffs to the Army, as they were
not paying small bills to the people of Ballina; that he was supplying one army
that he considered was right. Later plaintiff complained of the robbing of his
van by Irregulars. Witness and other men went out and met the van. He gave an
order that vans were not to be sent out, and all the traders obeyed except the
plaintiff. In December, 1922, witness was at the dinner to General Lawlor in
the Imperial Hotel. Plaintiff was there, and was ordered to leave because of
something he said about the army.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bewley, the witness
said he never mentioned this statement by Moylett to anybody except to the
military until this case came on. the dinner to General Lawlor started at 5
o'clock, and it was 9 o'clock when plaintiff was ordered out. That was on
Christmas Eve, 1922. there were present at the dinner a number of officers, and
some residents of the town. None of them were now in court except Theobald
Hanley.
MR. BERNARD HANLEY
Mr.
Bernard Hanley, of the Detective Branch of the Civic Guards, said he was in
Dromore West on the evening this lorry with Capt. Healy, who was the only armed
man, and a number of men, arrived. he sent the lorry on to Finner. About 10.30
in the morning they found the workhouse completely surrounded by irregulars to
the number of 300 or 400. Witness had 27 men with arms. He saw Alex Boyd there
with a rifle. He also Miss Boyd there.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bewley, he said it was
true that he was suspected in 1923 of being friendly with the Irregulars by the
men who turned mutineers afterwards. Witness could make no resistance when
surrounded, as P. J. Ruttledge told him he would have to fire on him if he did
not leave, as he was committing a breach of the Truce. His orders at the time
were not to fire.
To the Judge, he said the lorry arrived
between 9 and 10 o'clock at Dromore West.
To Mr. Bewley, he said he got the order when
going there to fire if fired on before they would give their arms up. they did
not give up their arms, but brought them with them to Sligo.
MR. MICHAEL McCAWLEY
swore
that on the 3rd June, 1922, he was a Staff-Captain in the Free State Army, and
got four men to meet the lorries at Scott's (Scott's Public House--PJC) Ardagh,
between Ballina and Crossmolina. They joined the lorries and passed on through
Ballina and on through Dromore West to Sligo.
DEFENCE CLOSES
Mr.
Leonard, K.C., in closing the case for the defence, said what Mr. Moylett
wanted from the jury was a certificate of political consistency. the sending
out of bans for Irregulars to capture seemed a very good way of serving God and
mammon, and if they believed that it showed that Moylett was occupying a
strategic position, and it was more than a coincidence that Alex Boyd turned up
in Dromore West at 6 o'clock in the morning following the capture of the lorry.
If they came to the conclusion that the statements in the letter were
defamatory, then they had to consider whether the statements were not true. He
thought they would be satisfied they were true. On the whole case he asked the
jury to say plaintiff's character had not suffered in the least. Mr. Moylett
had called the bluff, and when they came to examine his cards they found it
looked like a burst flush.
Mr. Geoghegan replied for the plaintiff, and
said the jury would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the
words complained of meant that his client was two-faced and treacherous, that
he laid the scheme of getting the lorry of troops to Dromore West to fall into
a prepared trap. So sure of the effects of publication was Mr. Duncan that he
came into court with an indemnity from Mr. Foy against the consequences. The
defence of the case seemed to be that Mr. Foy might as well be hanged for a sheep
as a lamb, and he had belched forth all the other slanders. The "Western
People," a paper of decency and honour, had refused to publish the letter,
but Mr. Duncan, indemnified against the consequences, had published
THESE VILE SLANDERS,
and
it was for the jury to say whether, after two trials in court, there was to be
a trail by newspaper in the back office of the "Ballina Herald." It
was for the jury to say whether the decent citizens of Ballina, having been
freed from the knife and the bullet, they were to be subjected to something far
worse. His client left the matter with confidence in the hands of the jury. He
came into the court of his country to see satisfaction for this attack upon his
character. He ventured to think they would have to scrutinise the effusion very
long before coming to the conclusion that his client had been subjected to
unfair and wicked comment. The malice that animated Foy was evident from his
answers n the witness box. He left the case to the jury, confident that Mr. Foy
would not again feel disposed to stand the racket as a result of the heavy
damages that would be given.
JUDGE SUMS UP
His Lordship, in summing up, referred to the
plaintiff and the defendant. Plaintiff, he said, struck him in the box as man
who was very anxious to evade questions and to get what he thought was good for
his case, but he stuck to his case all through. there was no equivocation about
Foy. the first question to decide was did the defendants write, print, and
publish the letter between them? There was no question about that. The second
was, what did the letter mean, or that portion that was complained of? Did the
jury think the portion of the letter was a charge against Moylett that he was
guilty of a criminal offence. He ruled impliedly that this was a matter of
public interest. the first question was, were the words true in substance and
in fact? If Foy had said nothing except what was true in an ordinary plea of
justification he could not be made liable, but where it was published in a
paper they had to satisfy the jury that the comments upon it were fair, made in
good faith, and without malice, and a matter of public interest. Was the
statement in the letter a libel? It was for the jury to say whether, taking the
whole circumstances, it was a libel. A libel was anything which tended to hold
another man up to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. Mr. Moylett contended that he
was always a supporter of the Treaty and of the Free State, and denied
categorically every statement of the other side is to alleged complicity with
the Republicans. The other side said he was a humbug, and that when he did
anything it was for the purpose of getting contracts--that he was always a
Republican. It was for the jury to say whether it was published bone fide and
not for the purpose of injuring Moylett. The questions he put to the jury
were--Did the defendants publish the letter? Did it mean what the plaintiff
alleged in the statement of claim? Were the words in their natural and ordinary
meaning true in substance and in fact? Were the expressions of opinion
published in the letter fair and made in good faith and without malice on a matter
of public interest, and, generally, was the part of the letter complained of
libel, and if they answered these questions affirmatively they could assess the
damages; and they were entitled to take into consideration the circumstances
under which the letter was written, and they could assess the damages in any
sum from a farthing to £5,000.
THE VERDICT:
After a brief absence the jury returned the
following answers to the questions submitted to them:--
(1)
Did the defendants publish the letter?--Yes.
(2) Did the
part of the letter complained of bear the meaning alleged--that the plaintiff
had committed a criminal offence?--No.
(3) Were the words in the part of the letter
complained of in their natural and ordinary meaning true in substance and in fact?--Yes.
(4) Were the expressions of opinion in the
letter fair comment, made in good faith, and without malice, on a matter of public interest?--Yes.
(5) Was the part of the letter complained of
a libel?--No.
(6) Damages?--None.
On these findings his Lordship entered a
verdict for the defendants with costs.
(We understand application will be made by
the plaintiff for a re-hearing).
No comments:
Post a Comment