Category: O’Bryen

James Roche Verling, (1787–1858)

WillLeave a comment
View from Spy Hill, Cobh, co. Cork

James Roche Verling, (1787–1858), was born at Cove,[Cobh] co. Cork, on 27 February 1787, the second son in the family of five sons and two daughters of John Verling and his wife, Ellen [Eleanor] (née Roche), of Cove. He is John Roche’s nephew, and a first cousin, five times removed.

John and Ellen’s children were

  • Bartholomew Verling (1786 – 1855) of Cove
  • James Roche Verling (1787 – 1858)
  • Edward Verling d. unmarried.
  • Hugh Verling d. unmarried.
  • John Verling d. unmarried.
  • Ellen m. James Fitzgerald of Lackendarra, co. Waterford
  • Catherine m. Henry Ellis “Surgeon R.N.”

The Verlings were a wealthy and influential Catholic family long established at Cove. James Roche Verling’s eldest brother, Bartholomew Verling (1786–1855), was harbour master and Spanish consul there, as well as a landowner and magistrate. As was fairly common at the time, there were a number of different generations all taking the same forenames. Their grandfather was also Bartholomew Verling of Cove, and a younger first cousin, Bartholomew Verling (1797 – 1893) of Oxclose. He, in turn, named his son Bartholomew.

James was apprenticed to Sir Arthur Clarke, a well-known Dublin physician, and afterwards studied under Gregory at Edinburgh, where he graduated MD at the age of 23, with a thesis “De Ictero”. He was then commissioned as Second Assistant Surgeon to the Ordnance Medical Department on Jan 25th, 1810. The Ordnance Medical Department was quite distinct from the Army Medical Department, and a rather higher standard of medical education was required. He was first stationed at Ballincollig, Cork, and then proceeded to Portugal shortly after Albuera, in medical charge of a battery of Royal Artillery, and was at once placed in charge of wounded, including wounded of the Artillery of the King’s German Legion. He was present with the Artillery throughout the subsequent campaign, at the sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo, Vittoria, Pampeluna, the storming of San Sebastian, the passage of the Bidassoa, Nivelle, Nive, and Bayonne. He marched with the Royal Horse Artillery to Paris, and received the Peninsula Medal with five clasps.

He was not present at Waterloo, but in July, 1815, was ordered with a battery of the Royal Artillery to St Helena. On Aug 8th he sailed from Torbay on “HMS Northumberland,”  which also carried  Napoleon and his entourage. Verling spoke both French and Italian, and, it is likely, he became personally acquainted with Napoleon on the voyage. The emperor seemed to be ready to talk with any of the officers who could understand him.

Longwood House, St Helena

After a two month voyage they landed at St Helena on 17 October, with the other passengers, he disembarked on the Atlantic island. The governor, Sir Hudson Lowe (1769–1844), another Irishman, appointed Verling his medical officer. After Napoleon’s favourite physician, Barry Edward O’Meara, quarrelled with the governor and was dismissed, it was Verling who replaced O’Meara at Napoleon’s residence, Longwood (25 July 1818). Napoleon refused to be treated by Verling, regarding him as ‘l’homme du gouverneur’. When Napoleon’s aide, Count Montholon, with whom Verling regularly conversed, suggested that he could become ‘l’homme de l’empéreur’ by agreeing to give Napoleon copies of his medical reports and not to pass on private conversations to Lowe (April 1819), Verling was uncooperative, though he always detested having to inform Lowe of what he learned at Longwood.

James Verling left St Helena, on the 25th April 1820, just over a year before Napoleon died (5 May 1821) Later he served in Malta, the Ionian Islands, and Nova Scotia. He was promoted to full Surgeon (1827), senior Surgeon (1843), and finally Deputy Inspector-General (1850), and appears to have served most of the last thirteen years or so of his career at the Royal Ordnance Hospital at Woolwich After his retirement in 1854, he returned to Cobh, by then, renamed Queenstown, where he died on 1st January 1858 at his home, Bellavista. It’s a rather pleasing irony that “Mr Bartholomew Verling [his eldest brother] was one of the deputation which waited on the late Queen VIctoria to obtain H.M.’s permission to change the name of Cove of Cork to Queenstown when she landed therein August 1849. “  according to Gabriel O’Connell Redmond’s memoir  of James Roche Verling in 1916.

View from Bellavista House, Cobh, co.Cork

It’s also rather pleasing that Bellavista still exists, but is now a hotel, and Chinese restaurant.

Verling wrote a diary of the daily round of events on St Helena  which passed into the hands of his nephew, Surgeon John J. Ellis, R.N.[ the sixth, and youngest, son of his sister, Catherine] , who took it to sea with him and lent it to a friend, who left it after him on board a ship in the China Sea. It fortunately was found by someone who recognising its value handed it over to Mr. Morgan, the British Consul, at Tientsien, in China. Consul Morgan thought it would be a good thing to present the Diary to the late Emperor, Napoleon the Third, and sent it to him by a French Naval Officer. The Emperor accepted the gift and had it deposited in the “ Archives Nationales” in Paris, where it now remains.

He never married, and the main beneficiary of his will was his first cousin Bartholomew Verling (1797 – 1893) of Oxclose. His estate was very large, just under £ 5,000 in England, and a further £6,000 in Ireland, or just over £ 10m. in modern terms.

A lot of Bartholomew Verlings

WillLeave a comment

It became clear very early on that there was more than one Bartholomew Verling who were part of the story. John Roche’s will of 1826 left some very significant bequests to various members of the Verling family.

“to my niece,  Ellen Verling,  I leave  £1,000 £4 per cent, stock, with £30 a-year profit rent I leave on her brother Bartholomew Verling’s stores ;……..  I leave  £100 to my sister, Ellen Verling ; to my sister, Julia Enery, £100 ; to my nephew, Doctor Verling,  and his sister, Catherine Ellis, £100 each,”

From the will, it was clear that at least one Bartholomew Verling was John Roche’s nephew, and another nephew was a doctor. What wasn’t clear was whether this was one person or two. After some research, it became apparent that the “Dr Verling” referred to was Dr James Roche Verling, who was a naval surgeon of some distinction, and had been, for a time, Napoleon’s doctor on St Helena.

But there were also some early other pointers, The entry for the Verlings in the NUI Landed estates database [http://landedestates.nuigalway.ie] is as following:

Verling – In the 1870s Bartholomew Verling, Springfield Lodge (Oxclose), Newmarket, county Cork, medical doctor owned 883 acres in county Limerick and 110 acres in county Cork. He appears to have acquired his county Limerick estate post Griffith’s Valuation. Bartholomew Verling (1797-1893) was a naval surgeon of Oxclose, Newmarket, county Cork. He was the son of Edward Verling and his wife Anne Ronayne. The Verlings were established at Newmarket by the late 18th century.

The key to the whole question seemed to be an article written in 1916, and published in the Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 1916, Vol. 22, No. 110, page(s) 64­ – 71. It is titled ” Dr James Roche Verling”, and written by Gabriel O’Connell Redmond. Dr Redmond was the local G.P in in Cappoquin co. Waterford between 1880 and 1914.  He was a great grandson of Daniel O’Connell’s and also John Verling and Ellen Roche’s great grandson. In a pleasing way with numbers this makes him a third cousin, three times removed. He was a noted historian and antiquarian, and also the town’s columnist with the Waterford News.

So to start sorting them out.

Bartholomew Verling of Cove (b. abt.1715 – ) has two grandsons also called Bartholomew Verling who are first cousins. The elder Bartholomew Verling (1786 – 1855) of Cove is John Roche of Aghada’s nephew twice over. His mother is John Roche’s sister, Ellen, and his father is Mary Roche’s (nee Verling) brother, John Verling

The younger Bartholomew Verling (1797 – 1893) of Oxclose, is also a nephew of John Roche, but only as the son of Edward Verling and Anne Ronayne, – a brother-in-law, and sister-in-law. Edward Verling is John Verling, and Mary Roche (neé Verling)’s brother.

It all becomes clearer in the pedigree of the Verlings of Cove.

HMS Beresford in 1780, and 1797.

WillLeave a comment

Henry Hewitt was described as the “Captain of the Beresford Revenue Cutter.” at the time of his daughter Jane’s marriage to Laurence O’Brien in Castletownsend in 1778. The following is from The Town and Country Magazine, and The Lady’s Magazine.

Domestic Intelligence.

21[August 1780] Captain Kearney, regulating captain at Corke, in a letter to Mr Stephens, of the Admiralty, incloses one from the master of the Beresford cutter to the collector of that port, of which the following is a copy.

Castle Townsend, Aug 13, 1780, Two O’Clock P.M.

Sir,

By express this morning, we acquainted you with an engagement off the harbour, on which we sent out a hooker, which has since returned, and find the fleet seen off to be that which sailed from Corke for America yesterday, all safe. The engagement was between his Majesty’s ship the Biensaisant, and one of the frigates with her, and a French 74, which we have the pleasure to acquaint you is taken. They are now lying too off this harbour, shifting the prisoners on board the different ships. The French ship had 600 men, on hundred of which were killed or wounded, and eleven killed and wounded in ours:-  This is the account the officer that went out in the hooker brings us, but thinks it is the Compte d’Artois, but is certain she is a 74; and he towed a boat with some of the prisoners. Another ship, a privateer, was in fight with the Frenchman, but she is not now in fight

Signed

T. Hungerford, Surveyor

H. Hewitt, Master of the Beresford Revenue Cutter.

Castletownshend , co. Cork

To the Collector of Corke.

The Ambuscade was the frigate which is mentioned in the above dispatches.

From The Town and Country Magazine, Or, Universal Repository of Knowledge, Instruction, and Knowledge.  Volume XII, for the Year 1780, London. Printed for A. Hamilton Jnr near St John’s Gate.

The same report was in The Lady’s Magazine; Or, Entertaining Companion for the Fair Sex Volume XI, 1780

and from the LONDON GAZETTE August 5 1797, the Beresford was still in action along the coast of Southern Ireland.

It’s unclear, but unlikely, as to whether Henry Hewitt was still in command. But, given his likely age, he almost certainly was not.  Assuming he was about 50 years old at the marriage of his daughter Jane in 1778 [ using a 25y/o+ 25y/o formula], he would have been born about 1728. So in 1797, he would have been 69 years old. If he had been the same age as his son in law’s father who was born in 1717, he would have been 80 years old. So, one hopes, the Irish Customs Service had managed to find a slightly more youthful Captain than Great Grandpa Henry…

Admiralty Office August 1 1797

Copy of a Letter from Vice Admiral Kingsmill,  Commander in Chief of his Majesty’s Ships and Vessels at Cork to Evan Nepean Esq. [ He was Secretary to the Board of Admiralty 1795-1804, and later Chief Secretary in Ireland, and later one of the Lord Commissioners of the Admiralty]  dated  [HMS] L’Engageante, Cork Harbour July 5 1797

Sir,

Please to inform my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that having Intelligence of a small Privateer being off Bally Cotton, I sent out Lieutenant Pulling, in the Mary Revenue Cutter, in Quest of her, and in a few Hours he fell in with the Beresford, coming from Waterford, just as she had captured the said Privateer, a chasse marée, named L’Acheron, of 28 Tons, out of Morlaix, carrying 1 Carronade Eight-Pounder and six Swivels, and 40 Men. She is just arrived here, and had taken Three Vessels, all of which I understand are recaptured.

I have, &c. R. Kingsmill.

The ship was decommissioned in 1819, and sold for scrappage in Plymouth, although the name lived on in more ships in the Royal Navy.

Hewitt – O’Brien March 20th 1778

WillLeave a comment
Castletownshend, co. Cork

1778,  March 20th, at Castle-Townsend co. Cork, Laurence O’Brien, to Miss Hewitt, daughter of Henry Hewitt, Esq, Captain of the Beresford Revenue Cutter.

The Gentleman’s and London Magazine: Or Monthly Chronologer published in Dublin,  printed by John Exshaw in Dame Street.

Laurence O’Brien and Jane Hewitt are Henry Hewitt O’Bryen [1780-1836]’s parents, and John Roche O’Bryen‘s paternal grandparents, so in our case, great, great, great, great, grandparents. Jane Hewitt is also the reason for the Hewitt name occurring as a forename in the next four, or five generations

A Revenue Cutter was a Customs vessel and each cutter master was answerable to and received his sailing orders directly from the Collector of Customs of the port to which his ship was assigned. All crew pay, requests for supplies, arrangements for repairs to the cutter, and mission-specific tasking came directly from the port’s Customs House.

So great grandpa x 5 Henry Hewitt was a Customs Officer.

John Hewson of Ennismore

WillLeave a comment

The following extract is from “Memoirs Of The House Of Hewetson Or Hewson Of Ireland.” by John Hewson published in 1901. It’s largely here because it makes me smile, but it’s also here because John and Margaret Hewson are the great great great grandparents of Mary I.E. O’Bryen, who is in turn a first cousin three times  removed.

 

John Hewson, Esq., of Ennismore, co. Kerry, named in his father’s will ; spoken of in the county of Kerry as the “Rich Foreigner.” Married 23 Oct. 1737 Margaret, then in her 19th year, of Royal descent (born 1718, died at Ennismore House 28 July 1809, aged 91 years), seventh dau. of Maurice Fitzgerald, Knight of Kerry, by his wife Elizabeth (whom he married 30 June 1703), second dau. of David Crosbie, Esq., and sister of Maurice, first Lord Brandon.

Ennismore, containing 1170 acres of land, was one of the residences of the “ Old Knights” of Kerry from about 1600 to the closing year of the seventeenth century, the “Grove,” near Dingle, being their principal one. In 1737 Mr. Hewson, upon his marrying the seventh of the nine daus. of Maurice Fitzgerald, Knight of Kerry, leased the whole estate from his father-in-law, and his descendants still continue to live there.

The appellation of “ Rich Foreigner,” by which Mr. Hewson was known in Kerry, is thus explained.  Down to the closing year of the eighteenth century, and even later, so strong was the clan feeling in this county, and so remote was it from the rest of the most “advanced ” parts of the island, that the people there always spoke of the inhabitants of any other county in Munster and the other three provinces as “ Foreigners.” An old Kerry gentle- man, not long since deceased, used to say that the Hewsons of Ennismore in 1750 — 1770 were the wealthiest “ foreigners ” of that day in Kerry, their foreign origin being simply their arrival in Kerry from the next county, Limerick, in or about 1730.

The roads in many parts of Munster at that time were very bad, and both gentlemen and ladies were obliged to save time and trouble by traversing them on horseback instead of using carriages.

There is an old Kerry tradition that it was on a journey of this kind from Ennismore or its neighbourhood that Miss Fitzgerald first made her future husband’s acquaintance. The horse that she was riding from that place into Limerick falling lame or casting a shoe, she and her attendant groom were at a loss how to proceed, when a young gentleman (Mr. John Hewson) happened to pass by on a good steed, the loan of which he asked her to accept, and walked by her side to the house of her friend in the county Limerick. The acquaintance led to an attachment and the marriage of 1737, of which the issue was numerous, and there arrived at maturity three sons and six daughters.

Countess Cecile de Sommery 1804 -1899

WillLeave a comment

This seemed so simple to start with, and turns out to be full of twists and turns.

There are rather faded entries, in difficult to decipher hand-writing, in John Roche O’Bryen’s family bible which list all his 16 children, the dates and times of the births, and where they were. It also lists the god-parents. The entry for Cecilia Agnes, the ninth child, and seventh daughter is as follows:

Page from John Roche OBryens Family Bible.

9. Cecilia Agnes [O’Bryen] at Bellvue  Novr 17th 1846          10 A.M  Gdfather, Wm Jones Esq, Pike Inn, Glamn Wales.  GdMother, Miss Cecile De Lonmery, Bath.  Died at The [French] Convent Belgium Janr 5th 1856 at 9 yrs & was buried in the Parish Church attended at her grave 320 persons who thanked God that she was taken to her  [chosen end] whilst innocent to God

I’m almost completely sure that Miss Cecile De Lonmery, is in fact Countess Cecile de Sommery. Almost all of that generation’s godparents appear to be wealthy, landed, titled, or Catholic, or in a number of cases at least three out of four.  

Willie Leigh 1829-1906 [Basil O’Bryen’s godfather – child 10] inherited the Woodchester estate in 1873, which his father had bought for £ 170,000 in 1845. He built the Church of the Annunciation, and Woodchester Priory for the Dominicans  shortly after their arrival in October 1850. It housed the noviciate of the Dominican order in England for more than 100 years; they only left in the 1960s when the buildings became too expensive to maintain. The monastery was demolished in 1970 leaving a small contingent of Dominicans to look after the parish.

Philip O’Bryen’s [ child 13] godfather Simon Scope came from a recusant family had had acquired their estates in Wensleydale in the 12th century, and still owned Danby Hall into the 1960’s.

But back to the Countess, this is her obituary in The Tablet.

THE COUNTESS CECILE DE SOMMERY.

Eyre Chantry, Perrymead, Bath

The Requiem Mass for the Countess Cecile de Sommery took place on Monday at the Franciscan Friary, Clevedon, and the body was then , conveyed to Bath for interment in the family vault [the Eyre Chantry] in the Catholic cemetery at Perrymead, where the remaining portion of the service was conducted. The grand-nephew of the deceased, the Marquis de Sommery, and Mr. Thomas Eyre, and his wife, Lady Milford, were the only relatives present. His Royal Highness the Duke of Madrid, head of the House of Bourbon, telegraphed an expression of sympathy with the late Countess’s relatives. The Countess Cecile de Sommery, Chanoinesse of the Royal Order of St. Anne of Bavaria, whose death occurred at Clevedon, Somerset, on April 26, was born in London in the year 1804. Her parents. Armand de Mesniel, Marquis de Sommery, and Cecile Riquet de Caraman, came over to England with the Bourbons during the French Revolution. Her mother was among the ladies last presented at the Palace of Versailles to Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette. One of her sisters married Count Eyre, father of the Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow. R. I. P.

The above text was found on p.26, 13th May 1899 in “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher. The Tablet can be found at http://www.thetablet.co.uk .

So far, all very factual, but fairly astonishing all the same. An elderly single lady being buried in Bath, whose mother met Marie Antoinette, and one of whose nephews was the first Catholic archbishop of Glasgow since the Scottish Reformation, and one of the first patrons of Celtic FC. Another nephew, William Eyre was the rector of Stonyhurst between 1879 -1885, and would have been so for almost the entire school careers of both Ernest and Rex O’Bryen there. So Cecile de Sommery’s nephew was the headmaster to her god-daughter’s youngest two half-brothers, although she [Cecilia O’Bryen] had been dead for eleven years when the elder of them was born.

The sister who married Count Eyre, father of the Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow was Augustine Cécile Pulcherie de Sommery (1797 – 1876). They married in 1828, three years after the death of his first wife Sarah Parker (1790 -1825). John and Sarah had five sons, four of whom became priests, and four daughters, three of whom died young, in the eight years of their marriage. So Augustine would have been very much a mother to all the children, who were all under nine when she became their step-mother.

John Lewis Eyre (1789-1880), Count Eyre, was an entrepreneur and one of the founding directors of the London and South Western Railway Company, taking for many years a leading part in the development of that railway. His title was a papal one, granted by Pope Gregory XVI, who created him a Count of the Lateran Hall and Apostolic Palace in 1843. According the Burke’s  “A Genealogical And Heraldic Dictionary Of The Peerage And Baronetage Of The British Empire” 1845.  ” The dignity of a Count of the Lateran Hall and Apostolic Palace was conferred by the sovereign pontiff Gregory XVI on Count Eyre the brevet or patent is dated at St Peter’s Rome under the seal of the Fisherman the 3rd day March 1843 and in the thirteenth year of his pontificate signed A Cardinal Lambruschini.”  Pius IX made the title hereditary in 1847, it was inherited by the Archbishop in 1880.

The best known of his four priest sons is Charles Eyre, the first post- Reformation Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow. the others being John, a priest in Newcastle, William Eyre S.J., Rector of Stonyhurst and Vincent Eyre, parish priest in London, first of St Mary’s Cadogan Street and then St Mary’s,Hampstead.

Another nice touch, St Mary’s Cadogan Street was the church that Bishop Bidwell was parish priest of, for thirteen years [from 1913 – 1930], and St Mary’s,Hampstead was, in part, founded by Joseph Francis Lescher (1768 – 1827).

In 1894, Archbishop Eyre  invited the Sisters of Notre Dame to come from the Mother House in Liverpool to establish a community in Glasgow. The Notre Dame Training College was opened in 1895 at Dowanhill. Joseph Francis Lescher’s great granddaughter Mary Adela Lescher ( 1847 – 1926)  [Sister Mary of St Wilfrid] was its first Mother Superior.

She  was Harriet Grehan’s niece, and Harriet Grehan was John Roche O’Bryen’s step-mother-in -law. She was also Fanny Lescher’s niece, she [Fanny} was another nun – [Sister Mary of St Philip] who was the Mother Superior at Notre Dame in Mount Pleasant,Liverpool.

It is still a mystery why Thomas Eyre’s wife still called herself Lady Milford after her first husband’s death  in January 1857. She and Thomas married in 1861, she was Lady Anne Jane Howard, daughter of William Howard, 4th Earl of Wicklow, so was a Lady in her own right. But it does seem odd that she still called herself Lady Milford  years after her first husband’s death, and only three years of marriage [ his second after a twenty eight year first marriage].

The Eyres were an old English recusant family, at Newbold, Derbyshire and Lindley Hall, Leicestershire, very wealthy, and owned a substantial amount of land in Ireland, as well as in England. Thomas Eyre had a large Georgian house at Uppercourt, Freshfort, county Kilkenny, . In the 1870s he owned 762 acres in county Tipperary, 1,909 acres in county Kilkenny and 164 acres in county Waterford.

In 1891, he and Lady Anne were living at 16 Hill Street, in Mayfair, just off Berkley Square. It was a very grand household, with  a butler, two footmen, two ladies maids, two housemaids, a kitchen maid, and two scullery maids, and curiously on the night of the census, no cook living in.He was succeeded by his cousin Stanislas Thomas Eyre in 1902, and left the modern day equivalent of £ 120m.

It’s all a very small world

O’Bryen v. Giddy November 1862.

WillLeave a comment

The Times, November 6, 1862

Bail Court

(Sittings at Nisi Prius [to determine the facts] before Mr Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)

O’BRYEN V. GIDDY.

Mr. Serjeant Pigott and Mr. Mathew were counsel for the pIaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Murphy for the defendant.

This was an interpleader issue to determine whether certain goods which had been seized by the sheriff were the goods of the plaintiff The question was whether the plaintiff was the wife of Eugene Plummer Macarty. The plaintiff was an Irish lady, and she contracted a marriage with Macarty in 1844, at Cork. They lived together for eight years, but in 1852 Macarty eloped. with Emily Verling. That caused inquiries to be made, and then it turned out that in 1839 Macarty had married Kate Creagh, near Dublin; that marriage had taken place in a private house, in the presence of a Lutheran clergyman named Schultz. Mr. Serjeant Shee interposed, stating that the question would be whether that marriage was a valid marriage. He submitted that it was not a valid marriage, as it was only performed in the presence of a Dissenting minister, whereas to make it valid it must have been in the presence of a clergyman of the Church of England or a Roman Catholic priest.

Mr. Justice Crompton said that from a decision of the House of Lords the law would be that it must be before a priest in orders It might be better to turn it into a case ; the parties might go to the Queen’s Bench, then to the Exchequer Chamber, and then to the House of Lords.

Mr. Serjeant Pigott said the 5th and 6th of Victoria, cap. 113, made the marriage good, as that provided that a marriage solemnized by a Dissenting minister would be valid.

Mr. Justice Crompton thought that would make the first marriage valid

Mr. Serjeant Shee said the marriage must be proved.

Evidence was then given, showing that Macarty married Miss O’Brien in 1844. They lived together until he eloped with Emily Verling in 1852. He then said he had been previously married to Kate Creagh. They lived together for some time, and then Miss O’Brien was persuaded that the marriage with Kate Creagh in 1839 was invalid and she took Macarty back again. He again eloped with Emily Verling, and married her, and they lived together until she ran away with some one else. The marriage of Kate Creagh was then sworn to as having taken place before Mr. Schultz in 1839. .Macarty was an attorney in Dublin. Kate Creagh in her interrogatory stated that she was the daughter of a gentleman’s servant. She was married to Macarty in 1839. Macarty left her in six months, and she was in the poor- house. She had left off her previous calling of receiving gentlemen for the last seven years, and was now living a respectable life with her brother.

The plaintiff was examined, and stated that she was married to Macarty in 1844. She now lived in Westbourne- place, Eaton-square. She was entitled to 1,500I.(£1,500) under her mother’s marriage settlement. She had, a settlement in 1852, after which Macarty left her with Emily Verling, who was a visitor in her house. He afterwards returned and lived with witness in Warwick-place, Pimlico; and afterwards in Upper Belgrave-place, of which the defendant was the landlord. She left that house in June, 1860. On the 25th of July, 1861, she had a sum of money put into her hands under a decree of the Court, and she furnished the house in Westbourne-place. That furniture was seized by the sheriff. Macarty had not lived with her in that house.

Cross-examined.-Macarty on the first occasion stayed away three weeks. She brought him back. He went away again in May, and returned in July, 1852, and went away again in 1855, but returned and remained till 1858. None of the furniture seized was in her possession in 1858. When she took the house of the defendant she represented herself to be the wife of Macarty, because she believed herself to be so until the Lord Chancellor’s decree in 1861. Macarty had dined with her twice in Westbourne-terrace. He was uninvited. He was in a wretched state of poverty, and any one would have given him a dinner out of pity. He had been prosecuted for bigamy.

A copy of a certificate of the Archbishop of Ireland was put in, authorizing Schultz to preach and administer the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of Ireland.

The learned Judge had great doubt about this document.

Mr. Isaac Butt, Q.C., had seen this document. According to the law of Ireland such a document could only be given to a priest in holy orders. In Ireland every curate received such a licence. In substance, this was the ordinary licence to a curate.

Cross-examined.-He meant holy orders by episcopal ordination, which the Established Church would recognize. A bishop would grossly violate his duty if he granted such a document to a man not in holy orders; that is, because no one could administer the sacrament in the Church of England who was not in holy orders.

Re-examined.-There was no objection to a marriage in a room before the Act of 1844. Did not consider this a German licence, but one to a curate of the Church of England.

Frederick Wisely, a policeman, and a native of Ireland recollected Schultz. Saw him perform a marriage ceremony at a private residence.

Cross-examined.-Was a witness on the occasion. It was about three years before 1847.

Serjeant Shee.-It is rather strange that he was buried in 1839.

Mr. Serjeant Pigott said that was his brother.

Cross-examined. -Did not know Schultz at the time of the marriage, but heard afterwards that a Mr. Schultz was living there. He was a dark-complexioned, old man. Took Macarty into custody in July last for bigamy, and then he heard of this marriage in 1839 by Schultz.

The learned Judge said there were great doubts about the case, but he thought it would be better to let the plaintiff have the goods without costs on either side.

Mr. Serjeant Shee said it was a hard case, but he should defer to his Lordship’s suggestion.

The Judge said, if they had proved that Schultz had officiated in any way there would have been no doubt. No action must be brought against any one.

Verdict for plaintiff without costs.

The Judge said this was the best arrangement, as parties now might have the pleasure of going from Nisi Prius to the full Court, then to the Court of Error, and then to the House of Lords, but at an enormous expense.

Eugene Macarthy, second indictment for bigamy – 24 July 1862

WillLeave a comment

Dublin Evening Mail – Thursday 24 July 1862

ALLEGED BIGAMY AND PERJURY.

Mr. Eugene Plumber McCarthy, described as a solicitor and notary public in Ireland, has undergone a lengthened examination, on two charges of bigamy and one of perjury, at Westminster Police-office, London.

Mr. Lewis, sen., was engaged for the prosecution.

Dr. John O’Bryan, of 17, Thistle-grove, Brompton, produced a certificate from the registry of the Rev. J. G. F. Shultz, in the Consistorial Court, Dublin. The prisoner was there described as Eugene M’Carthy, and the marriage which took place on the 28th of January, 1839, was between Catherine Creagh and Eugene M’Carthy. Witness also produced certificate the marriage of Mary Anne O’Bryan, in the parish church of St. Peter’s, in the county of Cork, to Eugene M’Carthy, on the 29th of June, 1844,

The first marriage was also proved by a witness who was present the ceremony. It was here explained that the clergyman question was what is called ” a couple beggar.”

Mr. Lewis pointed out that his marriages were valid, or they would not be registered in the Consistory Court

Mr. Ingleby Thomas Miller, solicitor, George-yard, Lombard-street, produced two letters from the prisoner, which were proved to be in his handwriting, dated the 5th and 9th of September, 1860, in which, in allusion to his first marriage, the prisoner urged that he was very young at the time; that Catherine Creagh had lived with him previously; that neither of them ever considered it as a valid marriage; that she left him shortly afterwards, considering that there were no marital obligations; that after he was married in 1844, at St Peter’s, to Miss O’Bryan, repeatedly saw Catherine Creagh in the streets, and, attaching no value to her marriage, she never sought him, or required anything of him, although his marriage with Miss O’Bryan had been published in the newspapers, and must have been well known to her. The question having been tried one of the courts of law, it had been determined by the authorities that marriages like the one spoken of were valid. The writer said he had seen Catherine Creagh in Cork as late as 1855.

Prisoner said that these letters were dated from Woolwich, and he never was there.

Mr. Lewis intimated that Catherine Creagh was alive now, and had given evidence a few days ago in the Court of Chancery respecting some property transactions.

Prisoner said that a woman had been brought from Ireland certainly.

Mr. Miller, on being cross-examined by the prisoner, said that about the time the letters were received there was some treaty about the raising of some money; the object was that the settlement should be set aside. He was about to lend Miss O’Bryan some money, and he wanted to be satisfied on some points relating to the prisoner.

A passage in one of the letters purporting be written by the prisoner was pointed out as showing that he well knew his first wife to be alive at the time of his marriage with Miss O’Bryan. It stated that Catherine Creagh resided at Cork in 1844; that she continued to live there, and that he repeatedly saw her.

Miss Mary Ann O’Bryan, who described herself as single woman, said that she was married on the 29th June, 1844, to the prisoner.

This was the evidence in support of the first bigamy, and the second was not proceeded with.

Mr. Lewis proposed that the evidence of the first marriage should copied upon the depositions in this case, and called

The Rev. W. Bell Mackenzie, incumbent of St James’, Hollowav, who stated that on the 22nd of May, 1852, performed the marriage ceremony with Eugene M’Carthy and Emily Verling. They signed the register, which produced.

Dr. John O’Bryan proved that the name of M’Carthy was in prisoner’s handwriting. Miss O’Bryan said that Emily Verling, unfortunately, resided in the same house with herself and husband; prisoner and Miss Verling left the house together.

It was stated that Miss Verling, finding she had been deceived, left the prisoner and went abroad. Mr. Arnold asked what evidence there was to show that in 1852 prisoner knew his first wife was alive?

Mr. Lewis said that the letter proved that he knew she was alive after 1854.

Mr. Arnold pointed out that he might have become acquainted with that fact in 1854, but might have been ignorant of it 1852.

A certificate was now produced in the third case against the prisoner, in which he had sworn, on his application for a licence to be married to Miss Verling, on the 19th May, 1862, that he was a bachelor.

Mr. Arnold observed that the question in this case would again arise, whether in 1852 the prisoner knew that his first wife was alive.

Miss O’Bryan was again called to supply the proof required, and her brother was also put into the witness-box to give secondary evidence of the contents of a letter written by the prisoner, which had been destroyed. It was addressed to Dr. O’Bryan, and was written after his connexion with Miss Verling, and stated that he had left his (Dr. O’Bryan’s)  sister because she was not his wife; that in 1839 he was married to Catherine Creagh, who died in 1851, and was buried at a cemetery described. At first he stated that he was married to Miss Verling, as he was at that time an unmarried man.

Mr. Arnold said that this evidence was not against the prisoner, but in his favour.

Mr. Lewis applied to have the depositions copied up for prisoner’s committal on all the charges, and asked for remand for witnesses from Ireland.

Mr. Arnold remanded the prisoner for a week, but said that at present he could only commit upon the first charge, as the others were not proved.

Eugene Macarthy, committed for trial at Bow Street, August 1862

WillLeave a comment

The Times, Tuesday, August 26, 1862.

POLICE (Courts)

Bow Street Magistrates Court

Bow-Street.-A middle aged man, of gentlemanly appearance, named Eugene Macarthy, was brought up in custody of Inspector Scott, of the A division of police, the officer in charge at the Reading-room of the British Museum before the sitting magistrate, Mr. Henry, on a charge of stealing from the reading-room six books-viz., Dugdale’s “Antient Usage of Arms,” the “Historical Memoirs of the Irish Rebellion of 1641,”  Dod’s “Parliamentary Companion”, Lawless’s “Ireland,” Hegel’s “Philosophy”, and a work in the Irish language, the title of which in English is “Christians’ Instructions”

Mr Poland, the barrister, attended to prosecute for the Trustees of the Museum, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Morgan, solicitor.

It appeared that the prisoner, who had practised as a solicitor in Ireland, was recently prosecuted for marrying Miss Mary Anne O’Brien during the lifetime of his former wife.

In the course of that prosecution he wrote a letter to Mr. Miler, Miss O’Brien’s solicitor, applying for certain books, papers, &-c., which he had left in her care at the time when they were living together as husband and wife. Mr. Miller submitted to her brothers, Dr. John O’Brien and Mr. Stephen H. O’Brien, tho prisoner’s letter, which was as follows:-

” 2, Caroline-street East, Camden-town, Aug. 7.

“Sir,- I venture to trespass on your kind indulgence to ask the favour of your either preferring the request yourself,or forwarding the request to 30, Westbourne-place, that certain books and MSS., with some other things, fairly mine, and of much moment to me, may be forwarded here by parcels’ delivery:- a hat-box and an old carpet-bag, both containing MSS., with a small writing-case,. I would have have asked this earlier of you, but severe illness prevented me till now. I apologize for addressing you, but really not knowing whom else to ask of, will excuse me. I am your obedient servant,”

“E. P. Macarthy.”

Book Stacks, British Museum Reading Room

Mr. Miller advised the Messrs. O’Brien, acting on behalf of their sister, to deliver up to Mr. Macarthy all books, papers, or other property belonging to him, but with the precaution that they should carefully examine such articles, and make a list of them. In the course of the examination which was made, in conformity with Mr. Miller’s advice,Dr. O’Brien discovered that among the books left by the prisoner in Miss O’Brien’s care were two which had evidently belonged to some library. These were the ” Historical Memoirs of the the Irish Rebellion of 1641” and Dugdale’s “Antient Usage of Arms” .It first struck Dr. O’Brien that these works were impressed with a crown on the binding, and were marked with certain numbers. Upon a closer scrutiny he came to the conclusion that they were stolen from the Reading-room of the British Museum. He at once proceeded to the Museum and submitted the books to the inspection of Mr. Rye, one of the principal assistants there. Mr. Rye identified the books as having been stolen from the Reading-room. [The Reading Room was officially opened on 2 May 1857 ] They had been given out in July, 1857, to a reader named Macarthy, and had never been returned. The were missed on the 1st of September, 1857. At that time the prisoner was a reader at the Museum. He became a reader on the 22nd of July that year, when he entered his name in the usual manner in the readers’ book, and that signature was proved, to be in his handwriting. His name was also entered in his own hand- writing on the fly-leaves of the books, and in one of them a label engraved with the Macarthy arms had been pasted over the Museum press mark. Upon this label the mottoes of the Macarthy family were written in Latin and in Irish, in the prisoner’s handwriting.

There was also found among the books left in Miss O’Brien’s care by the prisoner, four other books:-viz., Dod’s Parliamentary Companion, Lawless’, Ireland, Hegel’s Philosophy, and The Christians’ Instructions, all bearing the press mark, and all identified as having been missed from the Museum prior to the 1st of September. They were all marked with the prisoner’s signature and other memoranda, and marginal notes in his handwriting. Upon this information, Inspector Scott apprehended the prisoner at the Central Criminal Court, when he attended to take his place upon tho charge of bigamy. He was then taken to the station-house in Bow- street, but was not brought before the magistrate, as it was agreed, in order to leave him free to answer the charge of bigamy, that the present charge should be postponed until the other prosecution had been disposed of. He was convicted of the bigamy, and sentenced to a week’s imprisonment at the expiration of which period he was again apprehended by Inspector Scott, and brought up at Bow- street on the present charge.

Dr., Mr., and Miss O’Brien, Inspector Scott, and other witnesses, including Mr. Rye and Mr. Holder of the British Museum, were examined at great length in support of these charges.

Mr. Morgan, in cross-examining Miss O’Brien, asked her whether she had not herself held a ticket of admission to the Reading room of the Museum, and whether she had not signed her name in the readers’ book.

She replied to both questions in the affirmative.

Mr. Poland observed that he was glad those questions had been put, as it would enable him to show that Miss O’Brien was not a reader until after the time at which the books had been stolen.

The readers’ book, in which Mr. Macarthy’s signature had already been proved, was now again produced, and Miss O’Brien swore to her own signature as “Mary Ann Macarthy” (at that time she believed herself to be Mr. Macarthy’s wife). It was under the date 14th October,1857.

Mr. Poland called the magistrate’s attention to the fact that all these books had been missed from the Museum on the 1st September, being six weeks before Miss O’Brien had admission to the Reading room.

Mr. Morgan said,-After the evidence which we have beard, I think that the most prudent thing for the prisoner is to decline to say anything.

The prisoner was committed for trial, without bail.

Eugene Macarthy, third indictment for bigamy – 30 July 1862

WillLeave a comment

The Times, Wednesday, July 30, 1862

Westminster Police Court-

Mr. Eugene Plumber M’Carthy, solicitor and notary public in Ireland, was charged on remand with double bigamy and perjury in making an affidavit to obtain a licence for his third alleged marriage. The evidence previously taken in support of the charges went to show that the prisoner was married on the 28th of January, 1839, to Catherine Creagh, at Cullenswood, near Dublin, by the Rev. J. G. F. Schultz; that he was again married on the 29th of June, 1844, to Miss Mary Anne O’Bryan, at St. Peter’s, in the county of Cork ; and again to Emily Reiley [sic. Actually Emily Verling]  at St. James’s, Holloway, on the 22d of May, 1852. The affidavit for the last marriage set forth that the prisoner was a bachelor.

Yesterday, upon the prisoner being again brought up, Mr. Wontner attended on his behalf, and the case was reopened, the validity of the first marriage being questioned. The proof of this marriage rested upon the testimony of Mr. Harrington, who was present when that ceremony was performed. Letters were written by the accused many years afterwards to Mr. Mellor, a solicitor, which were produced and repeatedly referred to. In one, dated the 5th of September, 1860, at 16, Eaton-street, Woolwich, he says:-” I could have wished that the recital of the marriage of 1839 should exonerate me from committing a deliberate fraud in tho marriage of 1844. It was some years subsequent to the latter date that the validity of a marriage, without bans or a licence, by a Dissenting minister, was recognized. All the circumstances attending the marriage of 1839 strengthen the conviction that it was worthless, until, to my consternation, the Courts decided otherwise. I was then a very young man. The woman lived with me previously, and a certificate was had only to save appearances. In 1839 we separated, the woman no more than myself viewed it as valid. She resided in the city of Cork. I also resided near it. She never sought me, and knew where I was residing. I was married by licence in 1844 at St. Peter’s, Cork. Frequently saw the woman in the street. Was never molested or accosted by her. Never made the least claim upon me,for she, as well as myself, attached no value to the marriage and I remained so contented until, as I have already said, the question was raised on circumstances similar, and the Courts decided their validity; hence I am fairly entitled to be absolved from any fraud in making the contract of 1844.”

A postscript adds,-” I need scarcely add, you shall find me ready to do any and every act you may deem necessary to secure Mrs. M’s rights; as recompense for an involuntary wrong it is justly due.”

The second letter is in the following terms, dated Woolwich, September 9, 1860:-

“The place of celebration of the ceremony of 1839 was in Cullenswood,a suburb of Dublin; the celebrant. the Rev.Mr. Schultz, a German Lutheran minister, at his residence. The register he keeps is in the Prerogative or Consistorial Court, Dublin, lodged or impounded there since his marriages were first questioned. I can afford no information of Creagh’s death. I did hear it occurred in 1855, but where I know not. It may have been Cork, the last place I heard of her. But persons of her class assume new names, and have aliases for every week of the year,- and it may be no easy matter to satisfactorily trace her. She was in London a considerable time after 1839, and in Dublin also as long. There can be no doubt that she was in Cork early in 1855, and no difficulty in proving it. The decision settling the validity of Schultz’s marriages is well known in Ireland, and I have no doubt many a heedless young man found himself snared by it as I did.” – The letter concludes with some remarks about the settlement deed before alluded to.

Miss Mary Anne O’Bryan, 30, Westbourne-place, Eaton. square, was cross-examined by Mr. Wontner. She said she was first acquainted by her brother, Dr. O’Bryan, with the prisoner’s first marriage in 1852. She did not then believe it. The witness was married in 1844 and continued to live with the prisoner until 1852, when he went away with Miss Railey.  [sic. Actually Emily Verling].  The witness fetched him back, but he went away again with her. She and her family sold off his goods. She could not say whether her brother took the prisoner’s position of notary at Queenstown. This was the first time she ever heard her brother was notary. She had heard Robert O’Bryan was practising there as notary, but this was mere hearsay. When married to the prisoner her property was not settled upon her; but, after being married seven or eight years, he settled it upon her in April 1852. In 1860 she was desirous of recovering the sole control of the property, and instituted a suit in the Irish Chancery Court. He wrote the two letters produced to facilitate her getting the money out of court. The witness and the prisoner were living together in 1860, when these letters were written. The witness did not read them before they were sent but posted them herself as the prisoner was lame. The witness continued to live with him after this, but left him when she found she could. It was June 12 months when she last lived with him; she had since corresponded with him in answer to his letters for money, and had seen him, but not frequently. He had lived in Belgrave and Warwick Places, and there being some arrears of rent an execution was put in, when she declared herself to be a single woman. She could not say her brothers gave him into custody on his coming to the house at that time for this bigamy.

Mr. Harrington, the only witness to the first alleged marriage, said he was present at Schultz’s when the prisoner and Catherine Creagh were there. He was present at the prisoner’s invitation. Schultz was a very notorious person; he performed marriages when persons had not time to contract them through the Church. There was a ceremony of some sort gone through, but he could not say what. Schultz read and spoke in some form, and witness believed the parties were married at that time. He saw no books used by either of the parties, and never saw such a marriage before. The prisoner said he was anxious to make Catherine Creagh reparation and marry her. He could not say whether Schultz  was in canonicals. He thought he saw the parties kneel, but could not say

An Irish policeman was called to prove that Schultz’s marriage had been acted upon as valid in the courts of law in that country.

Mr. Arnold thought that, with the letter and the evidence of Mr. Harrington of a ceremony, there was a prima facie case made out.  He committed the accused for trial upon the first charge of intermarrying with Miss O’Bryan while his former wife, Catherine (Creagh), was alive, but he offered to take one surety in £ 20,  as he thought it was not a case in which the prisoner should be locked up.