From Saunders’s News-Letter, 7 February 1839 (abridged)
“COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH – YESTERDAY
ABDUCTION – EXTRAORDINARY CASE
The Queen, at the prosecution of Mabel Tucker, v Peter Yore, Thomas Flood, Michael Bradley, Mary Meehan and Anne Cooney
This case, which excited considerable interest from the peculiar circumstances connected with it, came on to be heard before Judge Crampton and a special jury. The traversers were placed at the side bar, and their appearance was that of persons in humble life. The principal traverser, Peter Yore, is a young man whose manner and features are in exact accordance with the lowness of his origin.
Mr McDonough stated that the indictment charged that on the 18th of April, 1838, Hannah Jane Tucker, being then under the age of eighteen years, and having a legal interest in a certain real estate, Peter Yore did contract matrimony with her; and the other defendants are charged with aiding and abetting him. The traversers pleaded ‘not guilty.’
Mr Smith, Q.C. stated the case for the prosecution. He said that there were two classes of offences, in point of law, which fell under the general classification of abduction. One of these offences was subject to high penalties; abduction by force or violence, a species of crime which rendered the party committing it guilty of felony, and liable to be punished by death. The same act provided, that, where any girl under the age of 18 years, being in possession of, or entitled to, any real or personal estate of a certain nature, was fraudulently allured, or taken away, without the consent of her parents or guardian, the person guilty of such an offence, and all accessories, were adjudged to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years.
Mrs Mabel Tucker, the mother of the young lady, Miss Tucker, was a person of family, of connections and of property, the daughter of a gentleman of the name of James Wilson, of a highly respectable family in the county Meath; and James Wilson, the elder, the father of James Wilson the younger, was a person of very considerable property in the county.
The son, James Wilson, married a Miss Knox in 775, and a marriage settlement was executed, dated the 29th July 1775 between James Wilson the elder, Lord Kingston and other trustees, by which the property of James Wilson the elder was settled to certain uses, and upon the failure of issue male of James Wilson the younger, it was to be divided among any daughters there might be of the marriage, as tenants in common. The marriage took place, and of that marriage there was no issue male, but six daughters, the third of which was Mrs Mabel Tucker. In consequence of her father having no issue male she became entitled to a certain portion of the family estate.
Miss Mabel Wilson was united to Colonel William John Tucker in 1807. Upon her marriage a settlement was executed, by which her property was settled to the use of herself and her husband for life, and if there was no issue male, and only one daughter, the daughter was then to become entitled to the portion of the Meath property belonging to Mrs Tucker.
Miss Tucker was, by the fortune, in which she had acquired an interest, unfortunately rendered a desirable object to the parties now on trial. He (Mr Smith) hoped that the effect of the verdict of the jury would be to defeat the designs of the man who had attempted to inflict an irreparable injury upon a most respectable lady and her child.
It would be shown that the prisoners at the bar had entertained the design, which they ultimately effected, for some years before it was varied into execution. Before 1830 the lands in the County of Meath had been in the hands of tenants, and none were out of lease or in the possession of Colonel Tucker up to this period. In 1830 a portion of the property of the name of Clonross fell out of lease, and Colonel Tucker and his wife being desirous to farm, did not re-let it. This was in 1830, and, having taken the land into their hands, it became necessary to have persons who would be employed as labourers on the farm. There was a woman named Yore, who had lived with her sons (one of them the principal prisoner Peter Yore) on the lands and the boys were taken as farm labourers into the employment of Colonel and Mrs Mabel Tucker, at the wages of 6d a day, afterwards raised to 8d or 10d. The jury might judge from this fact what was the rank and station in life of the prisoner, Peter Yore.
In 1831, unfortunately for Mrs Tucker, and the young lady, her daughter, Colonel Tucker died, and no greater misfortune could arise in a family than losing the head of it during the minority of the children or the child. Miss Tucker was then only eleven years of age, having been born on the 12th of October, 1820, and she was an infant not only in point of law but he (Mr Smith) might say also in point of judgment and feelings.
After Colonel Tucker’s death, his widow and child went to reside in England, where they remained from 1831 until May 1835. Upon their return to Ireland, Mrs Tucker took a house in the neighbourhood of the city, a place called Cabra Lodge, and there a transaction took place which would be subsequently detailed. The prisoner, Peter Yore, in the interval between 1831 and 1835 had continued at the farm as a labourer, and when Mrs Tucker came to Cabra Lodge he used occasionally to go there after having brought up cattle and stock from the farm. Upon those occasions, he frequently hinted to Mrs Tucker his desire to become a servant, and wished she would recommend him to some situation.
It appears that shortly after this period the prisoner, Yore, was employed by his mistress as stable boy, but, in 1836, he left her service and went into the employment of a person well known in Dublin, Mr Dycer. Perhaps this was not the best school for stable service. He did not long remain there, and, in 1837, again engaged with Mrs Tucker as a servant, at 8l or 10l a year. He used, occasionally, to drive the jaunting car, and upon such occasions Mrs Tucker used to accompany her daughter. If no other opportunity had been offered of communicating with her daughter, the unfortunate event, which was to be deplored, would never have taken place; but Miss Tucker was accustomed to take exercise on horseback, when she was not so much under her mother’s eye. This began about the month of January 1837, and upon one occasion, when Miss Tucker rode out at Glenbrony, her mother had her in view during the entire time.
The prisoner at the bar, Peter Yore, ultimately was employed in the capacity of an indoor servant but did not sleep in the house. It was not until a month or six weeks before the ceremony actually took place, that the man ever spoke to the young lady about marriage, and it might be as well to mention at once that the marriage took place on the 18th April.
About six weeks before this date, Peter Yore, the menial servant, first made advances, and upon the second occasion of his doing so, for the first time she made no reply – the young lady said she would tell her mother. He (Mr Smith) was instructed to the state that the prisoner Yore terrified Miss Tucker upon her making this answer to his advances, by declaring he would spread the most injurious reports respecting her character and reputation. Now this was a species of intimidation clearly within the meaning of the Act. Miss Tucker did not communicate what had occurred to her mother, and shortly after Easter the prisoner Yore became more pressing and more insolent in his demands, stating at the same time that he had communicated with the other prisoners upon the subject of the marriage.
It is evident that a deep scheme had been laid, and long before the daughter or the other had any notion of it. Yore’s sister, who was on trial with him, had been a servant of Mrs Tucker’s during the period of her residence in England, and also after her return to Ireland. The Yore family got up the conspiracy in order to plunder an unfortunate young lady of her property, and to divide the spoil among themselves. He (Mr Smith) would now state the relationship in which the prisoners stood to each other.
The prisoners, Thomas and Peter Flood, were both publicans, one living in Mary’s Lane, and the other in Paradise Row and they were related to Peter Yore, Mary Meehan was his half-sister, and lived with Peter Flood, in Paradise Row. Michael Bradley was the half-brother of Peter Yore, and was, at the period of the marriage, in the employment of Mrs Tucker as a servant. Anne Cooney was the whole sister of Peter Yore. A day or two before the 18th April, the prisoner Yore became more pressing in his solicitations, and he told Miss Tucker that Peter Flood was urging him on to effect the marriage, and he also mentioned the means by which he and Miss Tucker would be able to leave the house without exciting any suspicion.
The mode was this – that the prisoner was to communicate to Mrs Mabel Tucker that one of the horses required to be shod, and he was to proceed from Cabra Lodge to the city of Dublin, where the young lady was to join him, she going out on horseback attended by the servant Bradley. With respect to clothes for the marriage, Bradley was to make an excuse that one of the young lady’s gowns needed repairing, and he was to bring it into town to Floods, at Paradise-Row.
Upon the morning of the 18th of April, Peter Yore, having stated that the jaunting-car mare wanted shoeing, left Cabra Lodge, and some time after he left the house, Miss Tucker went out to ride, Michael Bradley accompanying her as her attendant; she was met by the prisoner Yore, and they proceeded in company to Peter Flood’s public house in Paradise-row. At this house Mary Meehan and Anne Cooney were awaiting in attendance, and Miss Tucker having been taken off her horse, her riding habit was changed in the house, and the victim was dressed for the sacrifice. She began to cry on finding the dreadful situation in which she was placed, but the ruffian who sought to deprive a respectable family of their peace of mind threatened the girl, and his threats succeeded. They managed to get her into a covered car, and the unhappy girl was taken off by Yore, and other members of his family to Smithfield, to a person of the name of the Reverend J Maguire, one of those curses in society, celebrating secret marriages without the authority of the friends of an innocent party.
As soon as the ceremony was over wine was produced, and Miss Tucker was pressed to take some, which she declined. Without loss of time, she was brought back to Paradise Row, where she put on her riding habit, and proceeded to Cabra Lodge. Mrs Tucker never heard one word of the marriage until September last, when a person of the name of Martin informed her that one of the Floods had been talking upon the subject. She lost no time in making the requisite inquiries. She communicated with her unfortunate daughter and was then informed of all the circumstances of the marriage, and the full extent of the misery she was condemned to suffer.
Mrs Tucker at once took the steps which should be taken and put the matter into the hands of her counsel and attorney. She sent for Mr Nolan to get the man out of the house, and to pay him his wages, and when he wanted to get back in again, he was refused admittance. Bradley was also discharged. Mr Smith, after alluding to the proceedings intended to be adopted in the Ecclesiastical Court, concluded a very forcible address by observing that the interests of society required that such crimes as the prisoners were charged with should be severely punished. Happily, for the interests of morality, such were of rare occurrence.
Miss Hannah Jane Tucker gave evidence that Peter Yore spoke to her about a marriage with himself about two months before the 18th April, she could not exactly say what he said. The next time he spoke to her a few days before the 18th of April, she told him she would tell her mother; he said if he would take her life if he did. On the 17th of April he again spoke to her in the garden on marriage and said he would shoot her. On the morning of the 18th, he threatened her again and told her to go out riding the next day and he would bring her to Paradise Row. She rode out that day followed by Michael Bradley towards Dublin.
Yore met her between the Turnpike and Blessington -Street and brought her to Flood’s house, where she saw Anne Cooney and Mary Meehan; her own gown was brought to her and she put it on. When Peter Yore went into the room she cried; he said he would not let her away until she married him. They got into a car, crossed the river Liffey, went to Smithfield, then went to the house of another of the Floods, James Flood. Thomas Flood went to look for a clergyman and came back with a clergyman. After the marriage, some wine was introduced, and she refused to take any. Bradley got down upon the Circular Road and dirtied his head and clothes by the soil of the road and said he would say the horse had thrown him. This was the reason given for the delay. She did not tell her mother because Yore had said, if she did, he would kill her.
Under cross-examination, she said she never met Yore alone after marriage, he never presumed to kiss her after the marriage or took any liberty before, he always treated her with perfect respect. She admitted sending her gown to the dressmaker but did not intend to alter it for a marriage. The gown was of Turkey red muslin. She denied telling Bradley what had happened or suggesting to him what to say to her mother. She was currently eighteen years of age.
Mr Holmes, Counsel for the Traverser, then rose to address the court and the jury. He said that it did not appear to him that an actual marriage de facto, had been solemnised. No evidence to that effect had been given. The prosecutor spoke of a clergyman having been sent for, and also that wine was produced, which she did not say that an actual marriage had taken place. Justice Crampton corrected Mr Holmes. The young lady had sworn that the marriage ceremony had been solemnised. Mr Holmes replied that he did not recollect such evidence had been given, but of course it was as it appeared upon the notes of the learned judge.
He then said as Counsel for the traversers, it became his duty to offer some observations to the court and the jury. They were called upon to come to a decision in a most extraordinary case. This case might have been tried at the Commission at Green Street where the bills were found. However, it had been thought right to remove it by certiorari to that Court in order to have a trial by special jury to have the case tried by persons as nearly as possible at the same rank in society with the prosecutors, and as far removed as possible from the station in life of the traversers, and accordingly his learned friend, in his address to the jury, had made use of some topics addressed to their feelings and some of them to their self-interest… If ever there was a case that called upon a jury to exercise coolly and dispassionately, they’re understanding, this was that case.
The indictment was that Peter Yore did fraudulently allure, taken, convey away, and fraudulently cause to be allured, taken and conveyed away Hannah Jane Tucker out of the possession of her mother. It was a case of compulsion. It was a confusion of the clearest distinction between ascertained ideas and words, to contend that in this case there was upon the evidence of fraudulent allurement of the young lady from her mother, they might condemn in all its parts the conduct of Peter Yore and feel if they please the strongest indignation against them, but there was no evidence why they would find him guilty. If they believed in their consciences that that young lady acted upon the terror of threats of the Traverser, he would say to confidence to his Lordship and them that they should acquit him.
It was clear that the Crown did not rest its case upon the charge of fraud or allurement. They could not do so. The only case they put forward was one of coercion and force. If anything, take away the force and coercion and the Crown had not a leg to stand on. He therefore, with great respect to his Lordship, with great confidence, also said that the lordship was bound to direct the jury to acquit the traverser. There have been no strategy and no deception, no fraud practised upon the young lady. It was their own act or she was by force made to marry the traverser.
If there was no force, the jury should acquit the traverser, but even if she was forced, it was his firm opinion that the traverser ought to be acquitted. The entire case of the Crown rested upon the testimony of the chief prosecutor, except her mother, not a single domestic, not a single friend from her extensive circle of friends was produced, not even the clergyman who was said to have performed the marriage ceremony. Not a single witness was produced in this most extraordinary case in support of the prosecution, except those he had mentioned.
Both mother and daughter, and especially the latter, were deeply interested in the results of the trial. It was their interest to procure conviction if possible, but it was fortunate that a jury could interpose between the wishes of the prosecutor and the conviction of the traverser. A jury would attend the evidence alone and the justice of the case, and he admitted that he did feel regret at his lordship. Arriving at the conclusion that the young lady herself was admissible as a witness, she was interested in a pecuniary point of view.
Who was the lady who had been fraudulently inveigled away from her mother? He would call her handsome, and when he was calculated in every way to marry with their own rank in society. She was a lady of good education, of accomplishments and fortune, the sole child of her mother and the heir to a large property. There were two questions in the case. One was whether believing the evidence, they should not acquit the traversers. The other was whether they could believe the evidence of force. She knew what the traverser was. He could not by fraud, strategy or deceit give a different colour to a station. He was a stable boy or car driver and nothing else. And of this she was surprised. There was no fraud or allurement in the case. She could never have imagined that she was marrying some hero in disguise, because of all his experience in poetry and literature.
There never was such an improbable tale, that the young lady told upon her oath (Laughter). They, the jury had no interest to go astray as she had. He called upon them not to believe her. She said that she’d not given the traverser any encouragement, that he behaved to her with the greatest respect. And yet he said to him, Miss, will you marry me? (Laughter). Will you marry me, Miss? No, she said. I won’t. She walked away, laughter. Could they believe that if she had not given the traverser encouragement that he would have dared to have made such a proposal to her?
In all the wonderful stories that he’d ever heard of ghosts and fairies he never heard of anything as extraordinary as the present case. According to the representation of the young lady (Laughter), it was said that she was forced to marry the traverser. She put on her riding dress. Then she shed tears. By force she got into the car. By force she was helped off the horse. By force she went driving to the place of meeting. By force she went back to Smithfield Market. By force, she was not forced to take a glass of wine at the wedding. However, this was the only instance in which she stated force was not used.
It might be said that she could not have formed any affection for the traverser. Could it be denied that they did find females in high rank and holding an elevated station in society who took strange fancies? The case was not new where a mistress fell in love with her servant. He could not account for a passion, nor could the jury, but he could say that such occurrences never took place unless the mistress made the first advance, and a fellow in Yore’s situation would never presume to pop the question if he had not received precious encouragement. They could not account for taste. The learned counsel continued to observe upon the evidence given and concluded by expressing his firm conviction, that the jury would return an impartial and just verdict.
The Reverend Dr Yore examined by Mr Costello: I am parish priest of Saint Paul’s and one of the Vicars General of the Diocese. I saw the accused three or four times; he was no relative or connection of mine. My family were originally from America. I recollect Miss Tucker calling upon me at the latter end of June or the beginning of July. She called upon me at my own house. She had called two or three times before when I had not had an opportunity of seeing her. She produced to me a certificate of marriage by a man in Smithfield. She said that she was not satisfied with the marriage but wished to be married over again. (Sensation.)
Are you quite positive she asked you to marry her over again? Repeatedly she entreated me upon opening the certificate. I was surprised to find the name of Yore in it, as I did not think anyone spelt his name as I did, and that no one but myself with that name was in this country. She said it was true. She told me that he was a servant, that he had previously called upon me to speak to me. I may not be correct in the exact words, but the substance of the conversation was that she wished particularly I should marry her, her whole intention and anxiety was that I would marry her to secure him, which greatly surprised me. Indeed, I told her I could not marry her. And if I did, my marriage could not be more binding than the previous marriage. I suspect I gave her the reasons for not marrying her. She pressed it anxiously again, and when I declined it, she departed. I told her it would be better for her to tell her mother and leave the country, as no one in society here would keep company with her. Her only reply to all this was that I should marry her.
Cross- examined by Mr Hatchell: did you see anyone accompany her to your place? I saw a boy leading a horse up and down. She came to me alone. They were not my parishioners and that in itself would have been a reason for my not marrying her. Yore called upon me and asked me to marry him, and I referred him to the clergy of the parish. I did not ask his name. I did not know it. The visits from Yore were previous to me seeing Miss Tucker. He said that he was going to be married to a lady of the name of Tucker. I believed he described her as a lady, and he mentioned she would call on me. I don’t think Miss Tucker told me of her rank. Her manner was of a lady accustomed to good society, and she had some relations, I presumed, who would be disgraced by her alliance with the servant. Her appearance also made me suppose that she was a lady of respectability.
To a juror: Throughout the conversation, she evinced the strongest desire to secure him to her, as she thought she’d not been legally married previously. When I told her to leave the country, I meant that she should do so under the direction of her mother. When I declined marrying her, she used to say, I do, Sir, marry me. I would rather be married by you (sensation.)
Mr Hatchell QC spoke to the evidence. He said that he was counsel for the prosecution on the same side with his learned friend Mr. Smith, who had opened the case to the jury. Gis able and talented friend Mr Holmes, of whom no man was more competent to manage the case for his client and to present a view that might be favourable, had made some legal objections to the prosecution, to which it became necessary to give answer, to the effect that the indictment was wrongly laid as the offence was not a misdemeanour under the 23rd section but a felony under the 22nd section, the abduction being a forcible and violent one and not one infected by fraudulent alarm.
Judge Crampton: Do you contend that under the 23rd section the law is that there may be fraud practised against the parents, though there was no fraud practised against child? Mr Hatchell said he certainly did, but he still had no doubt but that there would be shown such a fraudulent alarm and practised against the infant. As to warrant the conviction of the prisoners. The traversers were the very rankings of the channel of Marys Lane and the principal delinquent. Peter Yore, had the audacity to look with an unabashed and smiling air on the lady whose feelings he had outraged, and as for Cooney, her conduct was equally vile. She had lived as a servant in the employment of Mrs Tucker. She had been with the child. The part she took in the conspiracy would brand her with infamy. She ought to be hooted by the lowest prostitutes in Mary’s Lane, for aiding and taking away from the arms of fond parent, her only daughter, in order that a menial might lead a life of drunkenness.
Judge Crampton then preceded to charge the jury and commenced by stating that the case was one of an extraordinary description and a great importance, both with respect to the public and the individuals more immediately concerned. It had been as ably argued and discussed in both sides of any case he ever recollected, and if they should happen to fall into any mistake, it was not for want of assistance. Undoubtedly, if a jury believed, upon the evidence, that the production was by force and not by fraud, the indictment should fall point of law. Upon this subject, he felt called upon to give an opinion, and the question, which was one of very great importance, was now for the first time raised in this present shape. He was unable to share the conclusion contended for by Mr Holmes, which would go far to defeat the intentions of the legislature. He did not think that the fraud mentioned in the statute was limited to frauds practised on the infant, but also applied to those practised on their parents or guardians.
The jury retired and after deliberation of about ten minutes returned with a verdict of guilty against all the traversers. There was some manifestation of applause at the verdict.”
