Mayo history: Ballyhaunis district was free of poteen-making

By Tom Gillespie

PART 2

AT Christmas 2008, my old class pal, Eddie Bourke, a native of Mountgordon, Castlebar, through his publishing company, De Burca Rare Books, sent me a copy of ‘An antiquarian craze’ - the life, times and work in archaeology of Patrick Lyons RIC (1861 to 1945), which was written by Belmullet native Máire Lohan (nee Carroll).

Sergeant Lyons served with the Royal Irish Constabulary from 1886 to 1920. While stationed in the west of Ireland, he developed a keen interest in documenting the field monuments he noticed on his patrols.

In one chapter in the book, author Máire recalls how Lyons was transferred to Ballyhaunis on November 1, 1894, where he was stationed for the next 18 years, and where he encountered problems enforcing the Licensing Act.

Máire wrote: A major problem with the enforcement of the Licensing Act was the fact that public houses were situated in buildings in which other businesses were conducted - groceries and hardware shops.

The publican, who often also provided accommodation for lodgers, usually lived in the same house as his business and there was easy access between the domestic and business areas.

The report of a prosecution in 1902 graphically illustrated the problem of securing a conviction:

Mr. Patrick Tarpey was prosecuted for a breach of the licensing Act, being a holder of a six-day licence. A man named Patrick Killeen, a local shoemaker, was also summoned for being drunk on the licensed premises in question.

Sergeant Lyons entered the premises at about 10.20 p.m. (on Sunday) through the hall door, which was open, and went into the kitchen, the door leading thereto being also open.

There were three lodgers there as well as a members of Tarpey’s family.

In a little room between the bar and the kitchen he found Patrick Killeen, as it were, coming from the bar which was open.

He was under the influence of drink and talking loudly. Witness went into the shop and found a young fellow there talking to Miss Tarpey. There were glasses on the counter with traces of of drink on them, but whether the traces were fresh or not witness could not say.

He did not ask any questions about the state of the bar but inquired why Killeen was there and he said he came in with a pair of boots which he (witness) saw and seemed to be only after repair.

Sergt. Lyons continued: ‘What attracted my attention to the premises first was a cart I saw outside the door. Mr. Tarpey told me he was only after returning with his cart, and that he was taking his horse through the hall door into the yard.'

The charge against Killeen for being drunk was then taken up. Sergt. Lyons deposed that when Killeen came into Mr. Tarpey’s premises with the boots, he was drunk and staggering around the kitchen.

The defendant said he might be half-drunk but according to the Act of Parliament he could not be considered drunk (laughter).

The bench held the offence proved, but as he had business in Mr. Tarpey’s premises 'they would only fine him 2s-6d and costs’.

Another aspect of the Licensing Act which warranted extra vigilance was the provision regarding bona fide travellers.

The ease with which attempts were made to flout this provision can be seen in a 1905 prosecution: Sergeant Lyons deposed on finding the defendant in Mr. Conroy’s bar. In reply to certain questions, he stated that he lived two Irish miles from the town which he thought were equivalent to three English miles.

‘The publican informed me that the defendant presented himself as a bona fide traveller, which was sufficient for the publican.' In reply to further questions the sergeant said he had measured the distance to the defendant’s house and found it was only two miles and 834 yards.

A fine of 3s-6d and costs was imposed.

There was also the problem of shebeens, best illustrated in a 1904 case: Mary Muldoon was summoned for keeping on her premises intoxicating liquor for sale, she being a person not duly licensed. Her husband was at present in Castlebar jail doing a month for shebeening.

The defendant's daughter said there was one pint of whisky in the house which was got for men cutting turf in the bog.

Sergeant Lyons: ‘I took possession of it and another pint bottle of rum. The defendant was in town at the time. I met the defendant with a cart of goods but could find no trace of liquor in it.'

The defendant said she had some drink in for the men in the bog and subsequently she herself stated that she had the whiskey for a child of hers who had chin-cough, and she was being advised to give it some whiskey by a man who had passed the way on a grey horse.

In reply, the sergeant said he had searched the cart but he believed they had disposed of the drink which was in it before he got the opportunity of making a search.

‘I believe while I was searching the house a messenger was dispatched to inform her.’

At this stage Sergeant Lyons asked their worships if they would have any objection hearing Fr. Fallon’s views on the matter.

Fr. Fallon: ‘This woman has raised a considerable amount of trouble in the parish. She promised me several times that she would not keep intoxicating liquor in her house. She has given drink to a boy who is only 13 years of age. I would be very glad if you would punish her as far as the law will permit you.’

A non-drinker himself, Lyons continued his efforts to bring abusers of alcohol, makers, sellers and buyers, before the courts and ‘when in due time he won promotion to Head Constable, his district had the reputation of being free of the practice of poteen-making’.

NEXT WEEK: What a great nuisance tramps are to the public