From the archives: The burning of Clogher dance hall in 1934

By Tom Gillespie

IN July 1934, Castlebar Circuit Court heard a case concerning the burning of Clogher dance hall.

Mr. James Fitzgerald-Kenney, K.C., T.D., Clogher House, claimed £115 damages for the malicious burning of the hall.

Mr. Conry, B.L., (instructed by Mr. P. Durcan, solicitor) for the applicant, said the hall was erected in 1921 by local subscriptions. It was used generally for dances and after a dance there on April 15, 1934, the building was discovered burned to the ground.

Patrick Heneghan, Brackboy, Clogher, gave evidence that on April 15 a dance was held in Clogher Hall. About 100 people were present and the dance was over at 12.30. Witness locked the hall after the people left.

The hall was illuminated with paraffin lamps, but these were extinguished before witness left the hall. The furniture in the hall was made up of tables and forms.

Witness first heard of the burning on Tuesday morning. On the Monday following the dance he saw the hall and it was quite all right.

Cross-examined, the witness said he did not own the hall nor did he know who was the owner. He knew nothing about the collection for the hall. It could be that some of the people who subscribed were now listed as applicants.

In reply to Mr. Michael Moran, solicitor, who represented a number of ratepayers in the district, the witness said the furniture in the hall was second-hand. Some of the persons who assisted at the building of the hall were not listed as applicants.

Joseph Neary, contractor, Clogher, said he had helped to build the hall, towards which his father subscribed £1. Witness described the structure for the benefit of the court. He told the Judge that it would cost over £100 to rebuild the hall.

In cross-examination witness said that no person gave labour or money except the 26 applicants listed in the claim. A man named Austin Heneghan could have laboured at the erection of the hall.

Mr. Moran: Have there been rows over the ownership of the hall? - No.

The witness said that the last witness ‘must be going astray’ when he said he didn’t own the hall or knew the owner.

In reply to Mr. Moran, Nally said the hall was not an old barn. The walls were plastered inside and the plaster was all knocked down. He didn’t know that Patrick Ryan was a contributor to the hall.

It was true that when the hall was built there was no political dissension in the district. He denied that only one political party could get control of the hall now.

James Dempsey, an employee of Messers. Durcan’s, Castlebar, gave an estimate of the cost of the articles required in order to restore the hall. He could not say whether all the articles mentioned were required as he had no previous knowledge of the hall.

Edward Mongan said he was at the dance on the night of April 15. He did not see the hall until then following Tuesday when he said it burned.

Richard Naughton said he was also at the dance. He saw the hall being locked and everything was all right at that time.

To the Judge, witness said the dance was held without a licence and there was a charge for admission.

On a previous occasion at a dance he knew of his own knowledge that the hall was stoned and people inside were in a terrified condition.

Thomas Durcan said that on the night of April 15 the dance was quietly held. On a previous occasion the hall was stoned by people who would not be allowed in without paying.

Asked if could show ownership, he replied: My brother can (Laughter).

The Judge said that the County Council were not public insurers and the mere fact that a fire occurred in the hall did not give the owners liberty to bring an action against the County Council so that the County Council should pay for that fire.

He had evidence that the hall was stoned, but a witness stated that it was stoned by boys who would not be allowed enter without payment.

That was the only evidence of malice before the court and it was not sufficient to enable him to say if the hall was burned maliciously. It was up to the hall owners to claim against the boys who were angry, if they thought fit. The claim must therefore be dismissed.

The respondents were allowed £4 9s. witnesses’ expenses and costs.