(Before Mr. Justice Andrews)

Connell V. Cross

The hearing of this case was resumed yesterday. It was an action brought by Mr. Timothy Connell, of Ballinaguila, Ballincollig, against Mr. Philip Cross, of Shandy Hall, Dripsey, to recover £500 damages for assault committed on the plaintiff's lands on 7th April last. The defendant brought £3 into court to meet the claim.

Mr. D. B. Sullivan stated the case for the plaintiff, on the previous evening.

       A special city jury was sworn, composed of the following gentlemen: - Edward J. Scannell, William Adams, Samuel Thomas, George Addy, Barry M. Egan, Patrick 0'S Galgey, John Reed, Joseph H. Cade, William Gibson, John Banks, Isaac Julian, and William W. Harvey.

                 Counsel for the plaintiff - Messrs, D. B. Sullivan and T.M. Healy, M.P. (Instructed by Mr.M.Healy)

               Counsel for the defendant - Messrs. Atkinson,Q.C., Roche,Q.C. and Ronan (instructed by Messers. Gregg and Conner).

      Timothy Connell, the plaintiff, was examined by Mr. D.B.Sullivan. He deposed - My father hoIds about two hundred acres of land near Ballincollig; so far back as December, 1883, my father published a notice prohibiting persons from trespassing on the lands; notices were also posted, on the farm; during the last spring parties of horsemen have come upon my father’s land against his consent; three weeks before the date of the assault a party of huntsmen came upon the lands and travelled over them in spite of us; on the 7th of April I was at dinner, and having heard a noise outside I ran out and saw a party of horsemen coming through the yard; there were about one hundred horsemen; I said to them - "Gentlemen, are ye not aware that hunting is prohibited here”. One of them said "Move on, he can stop only one or two of us." I opened out my arms and said, "you must go back, I won't allow you to pass”; I caught two of the horses by the bridle reins, and I said "ye might as well go back peaceably"; while I had hold of the two horses by the bridle reins, a ladies horse ran in between them and one of them cried out “shame let go the lady”; I said "no, ladies and gentlemen are all the same"; the defendant faced his horse towards me to ride me down; I was obliged to let the lady’s and gentlemen's horses go away, and they passed into the farm; so none of them went back; I caught the defendant’s horse, and he said "let go my horse,“ and I said, "I will not unless you go back“ he said, "if you don’t I will make you,” I said, “I will not unless you go back“; he then turned the whip in his hand and wound round his head and struck me with the heavy end of it on the left temple; I had a hold of the two horses - at the time I was struck; the blow cut me, and I bled freely; after receiving the blow I stood a moment, and when I received my senses after the blow; he said, "let go my horse," and I said  "I will if you go back"; I had to let the other horse go, but I held on to the defendant’s  horse, I observed my brother take up a stone when he saw me cut, and I said to him, "don't throw it”, one of the gentlemen also said "don’t hit him, you have all the law in your own hands now,” others of the party cried, "shame" when they saw me bleeding; he faced the horse at me as if to trample me down; I still held on and brought the horse into the yard to lead him out into the passage to the high road ; all the time he continued hitting me on the hand with his whip; I said, "you are Dr, Cross I know you very well”, all through I refused to let him go through the land. I suffered from the effect of the blow for three weeks.

      Cross examined by Mr. Roche - This passage leads to a fox cover on another farm. Hounds frequently went there to draw the cover, but not with the consent of his father or himself.

       To a Juror (Mr. Gibson) – This passage does not lead out beyond our farm and nobody else has a right of way over it.

      Cornelius Connell brother of the plaintiff, was examined by Mr. Healy, and corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff. He asked one of the farm servants to fetch a pike, when he saw the violence of the defendant. The pike was not brought. He took up a stone to fling at Cross-, but his brother told him not to strike him.

            To Mr Ronan – The wound upon my brother’s head was dressed by a doctor. The doctor is not here to give evidence.

           Mary Mahony gave similar evidence, and the plaintiff’s case closed. 

     Mr. Roche opened the case for the defendant. He said it was a regrettable thing to see, where for many years huntsmen had passed along from the main road for a fox cover without interruption, this young man make himself so active as to get up a placard, signed by his friends and himself, and circulate it through the country. Though the plaintiff’s father was owner of the land there was not a particle of evidence before the court to show that that respectable farmer had the least objection to this sport being carried on through his land, He (Counsel) was afraid that Connell allowed himself to be carried away by some undue excitement in respect to this business. Technically, Dr. Cross was not justified in doing what he did, but under the circumstances he would ask the jury to say that as no injury had been done to him that the damages he was entitled to should be very small.

             Mr. Philip Cross, examined by Mr. Ronan, deposed - I never heard of the notice mentioned to-day by the plaintiff; I had frequently hunted with these hounds of the llth Hussars in that neighbourhood; the hunt that day passed through the bohreen to the cover, which is about a mile from the road; we did no injury whatever to the lands; this was the last day of the season, and fifty was the outside of the number of horsemen in the hunt; I was riding a four year old mare, with a temper not very amiable when roused; we rode through the farm yard; plaintiff came out and tried to stop them; “Oh,“ said I,” Let them go on, it is the last day of the season, and they may not come here ever again,”  Connell said he would not allow them to pass; he took up two stones; I am not positive what he did with them; he rushed at some peoples horses; I saw a stone go within a foot of my head; some of the people made off; my horse was caught by Connell; I am not clear about it that I was trying to force my way past him; a lady rode past and he caught her horse; I said “shame,shame,let the lady go”; he did so, and then seemed comparatively to vent his rage on me; he kept chucking at my mare, and she began to rear; he was very excited; the mare really frightened me; my life was in danger; I had this whip (produced), and I hit him a blow; there is not a word of truth in the suggestion that I struck him with the heavy end of the whip handle; if I hit him with the heavy end he would not be here to-day to tell the story; Connell held on to the mare; I said “let go the mare and I will go anywhere you like“; he led her into the yard; after I struck he cried out “fetch me a pike, fetch me a pike”, as if he wanted to stick me; the pike did not –Transcript not readable for this section  

              In the course of cross examination 

How far do you live from the plaintiff’s land?                      About 14 or 15 miles. How often have you passed those lands within the last couple of years? I don’t know how often, but certainly I passed twice; I never saw the advertisement in the papers prohibiting trespassers from entering on the land; I never heard of it. Would you think it a right thing to gallop over a man’s land without his consent? I don’t think it is a right thing to do. Would you think it is a right thing to strike a man for trying to prevent you from going over his land? I would not; we were not on his land; we were only in the passage. And the passage leads into his fields? Yes; I saw the defendant with his arms out trying to stop the hunt, but I did not know that he was stopping me. Didn’t you ride up to him? I rode up to expostulate with him. Yes, with a riding whip - did you see the other huntsmen ride off towards the fox cover? I did; I didn't see any of them turn back. You said he had two stones in his hand? Yes. And when he had a bridle of each of the two horses in his hands where were the stones? He held them in his hand still, I think. Are you aware that you made two affidavits?  Yes. Why did you not mention anything about these two stones in either of them? It might not have occurred to me. Upon your oath weren't you trying to force your horse past that young man? When he caught my horse I was. Then he caught your horse to stop you from going past - did he touch you or strike you or insult you that day?  He did not; I dismounted for my whip, which fell on the ground and re-mounted, and he did not touch me. And that was while he was covered with his blood?  Yes; he bled a little. When he got you out into the bohreen did you attempt to return and follow the hounds? I deny that. You say he was chucking at your horse's bridle? Yes. Is there a word in your affidavit about that? I was not asked for it, and it is of no consequence. Are you a very peaceable man yourself? Very. You have a bit of temper of your own, though? I did not say so. You are a bit of a boxer? I am too old to box now. Have you had the boxing gloves on? I had. You are a very cool, calm, temperate man? Moderately so. How often were you before the magistrates? I could not tell. How often were you up before them for assault? I don't recollect.                                            Do you think it is a thing you would forget? I don't recollect it - to the best of my belief I was never up for assault. Were you known in the army as the "fighting doctor"? I never heard of it. You were fined £5 In Bermuda (laughter)? I don't recollect. Is it a circumstance that you would forget? Very Likely. Will you swear you were not fined? To the best of my belief I was not. Were you put on half pay while you were in the Crimea? No. Who was Surgeon-General over you in the Crimea? Let me see (after a pause) I don’t know. Did he bring a charge against you? No. You weren’t known as the fighting doctor? I don’t know. Used you wear boxing gloves? Yes, often in my life. But you don’t remember this circumstance of throwing a bucket of sink-water over an old woman in Bermuda, for which you were fined £5. No. Is it correct to say that you struck him and that then he called for someone to fetch a pike? Yes. And why did not say in your affidavit “I saw two stones in his hands; he called for a pike, and then fearing I might be hurt struck the plaintiff with my whip in self-defence.” I don’t think I said that.                   

             To a juror (Mr.Banks) – The case was never before a petty sessions court.                                                           Lord Ernest William Hamilton was next examined for the defence. He was a member of the hunt on 7^th April. Dr.Cross was amongst the leading horsemen going into the plaintiff’s land. Some of them turned back, when requested to do so by the plaintiff, and others went ahead. Witness did not see the assault complained of committed, but he saw the plaintiff catch hold of Dr.Cross’s horse and lead him back. He went up to the plaintiff’s brother who had been pointed out by the plaintiff as the farmer of the lands, and he asked him if he had any objection to let them go over the lands He said he had not, that he might follow the others. “But,” said he,“I cannot stand seeing my man knocked about”, meaning his brother. He then followed the hounds and that was the last he saw of the affair.

                  The case for the defence then closed.                   Mr. Ronan then addressed the jury on the evidence. He characterised the story of the plaintiff and his witnesses as a tissue of falsehood and no part of it more untruthful than that in it was sworn, that the blow was given by the butt of the whip. If a blow had been given with a butt end of such a terrible weapon as had been produced in court the man’s life would have been endangered. It all arose out of a desire on the part of the plaintiff and some friends of his to sow dissension between classes in this country. He (Counsel) asked the jury to say that £3 lodged in court was enough to satisfy the damage that had been done the plaintiff by the slight tip he had received, and it was more than he had honestly earned in one day for a very long time.

                           Mr.Healy replied for the plaintiff. He thought that if anything could aggrevate the assault committed in this case, it was the manner in which counsel had summed up on behalf of the defendant. Not a word of apology or regret was expressed, but every attempt was made to throw dirt upon the plaintiff and his witnesses. The attack made by counsel for the defendant was a true reflex of the spirit in which Mr. Cross had brought the case into court, and in which he acted from first to last. What ever might be thought of hunting, he had no worse friend than Dr.Cross. Farmers could prevent hunting over their lands or not as they wished, but was that the way to have such a sport promoted in the country, to have gentlemen of the type of Dr. Cross committing assaults like this with impunity, so that the blood of the unfortunate farmers might stream about their clothes, and then that the plaintiff could come to a special jury of the city of Cork, and ask them to think so lightly of the life-blood of the occupiers of the lands upon which the hunting takes place, that they will say that £3 would be enough damages, and that as  Mr. Ronan said, it would be more than he had honestly earned for a long time. Counsel then referred to the evidence of the defendant, and asked the jury to contrast it with the affidavits he made when he was at liberty to make the fullest and best defence he could, and say how far they were prepared to believe his statements. Not a word was said in his affidavits about the stones, which he said Connell had in his hands, and not a word about the “chucking” of the horse. The plaintiffs were called perjurers. He (Mr.Healy) would not apply that term to Dr. Cross, but let the jury contrast his statement on the table with those in his affidavits. If the plaintiff had been treated by Dr. Cross in the most polite manner he could not have acted more peaceably or civilly towards him. There were four contradictions in his affidavit, and he had no recollection of a memorable transaction in the Bermudas. The jury saw him upon the table. He was asked a question by his counsel and it was objected to. The judge ruled that he should not answer it, but he defied the judge and insisted on answering it, and would the jury believe that when he defied one of her Majesty’s judges he would not defy a farmer’s son. That fact alone he (counsel) presented to the consideration of the jury to show the character and temper of the defendant. He swore he rode to the plaintiff to expostulate with him. Expostulate, indeed! They had heard of a person being rebuked with a revolver. He rode up to the relief of a lady in distress, and having asked to release her this Don Quixote of Shandy Hall proceeded to “expostulate!” Was this the way to promote peace between class and class? The plaintiff had every right to warn off and exclude anybody he wished from his father’s lands. Hunting was a pastime which could be carried on only with the consent of the occupiers of the land. It was notorious in the district – to Dr. Cross and everybody else that forty or fifty farmers about there had signed a protest against hunting over their lands, and could anything tend more to the disturbance of law and order than to find a number of gentlemen, in defiance of the wishes of the owner’s of the lands, ride in upon these farms. The jury might disapprove of the prohibition, but no man had a right to walk in upon another man’s farm. If in addition to the trespass they had the injury and insult and assault, what feeling would be produced in the minds of the farmers if they found for such trespass and injury, a £3 note flung to them by a jury as adequate damages?

He asked the jury to give such a verdict.

 Transcript not readable for this section   

Not violating the law in preventing                            going

there, and those who choose to     Transcript                     way