O’Dwyer v. Woulfe (1916)

These two accounts, which appeared in the Liberator (Tralee, Co. Kerry) on January 11, 1916, and the Kerryman (Tralee) on March 18, report on a slander trial against Dr. Timothy Woulfe. It began with the death of his cousin, Brown Dick Woulfe, the previous June, and ended with an appellate judge reprimanding Dr. Woulfe. Numerous typographical errors have been retained.

SLANDER ACTION AT LISTOWEL QUARTER SESSIONS

Tarbert M.O. as Defendant.
Interesting Case.
(Before Co. Court Judge Dromgoole).

O’DWYER v. WOULFE.

This was a remitted action for slander brought by Jeremiah O’Dwyer inspector at the Limerick terminus of the G. S. W. Bailway against Dr. Timothy T. Woulfe, Medical Officer, Tarbert Dispensary District of the Listowel Union.

An action for a like cause was brought against the same defendant by Edward Sheahan, boots [boot shiner] at the Glentworth Hotel, Limerick.

As both cases arose out of the same circumstance it was decided to try both issues together.

Mr. D. Downing, B.L., (instructed by P. E. O’Donnell, solr, Limerick) appeared for the complainants and Mr. B. Roche, B.L. (instructed by M. J. Woulfe, solr., Abbeyfeale) for the defendant.

From the evidence of O’Dwyer he was at the railway station on the 7th June [1915], conversing with Edward Sheahan, the second plaintiff in the action and boots at the Glentworth Hotel and an employee of the Royal George Hotel named Cummins when the defendant came on to the station in an excited state and asked him as to when he could get a mortuary “hearse” to convey the remains of a man who had died in hospital at Limerick to Abbeyfeale. He witness said that in such cases it was usual to give 24 hours notice and asked him what train he intended taking the remains by and the defendant did not say. He (witness) said he would do the best he could for him and the defendant, who said he had some urgent business down the city, went away and the remains were conveyed to Abbeyfeale by the 6.30 p.m. train.

The defendant afterwards reported him to the railway authorities for being impertinent, insolent and uncivil towards him

on the occasion and had published the result of the ensuing inquiry which he (plaintiff) considered malicious and prejudicial to his position as on the occasion he was neither insolent nor uncivil to the defendant.

In reply to Mr. Roche witness said he was sitting on a truck on the station with Sheahan, and Cummins, when the defendant approached; he was not reading a newspaper, he did not know whether Sheahan was reading it, he could not say which of them was reading it, they were not reading it aloud, it was not read to him.

Mr. Roche—Dr. Woulfe stated and will state here that when he came up to you, you were reading a newspaper? I’ll swear I was not reading a newspaper, I said that in the presence of Mr. Miller at the inquiry and I state so now.

I suggest that Dr. Woulfe came up to you and asked you a question, that you were reading the paper and never looked up at all—is there any truth in that? There is not. I wasn’t reading a paper at all at the time.

Continuing witness said it would not be true if defendant said he (witness) made him no reply.

Did he say to you—will you kindly tell me what notice will I have to give you. If it is not ready for the 6.30 trail will the notice I give now be sufficient for a train to-morrow? No, all I wanted was to tell me the train he was sending the remains by and I was quite prepared to have it for him.

Witness further stated that Dr. Woulfe on the occasion took out a note book and pencil and began writing on it.

Did he make notes in it? I don’t know.

Will you be surprised to hear that Dr Woulfe will swear he did not produce any note book? I wouldn’t be surprised what he would swear (laughter).

Continuing witness said that Mr. Miller held the inquiry and read the censure to him.

Edward Sheehan the second plaintiff was examined. His cause of action was that the defendant wrote his employer at the Glentworth Hotel that he (Sheahan) perjured himself in favour of O’Dwyer at the inquiry held into the matter by Mr. Miller the district inspector G. S. and W. Railway, Limerick. He bore out the testimony of O’Dwyer in his denial of insolence etc. to Dr. Woulfe, who was not at the time known to either of them. He further stated that it was Cummins had the paper on the occasion, O’Dwyer had no paper. When the defendant came up to where the three of them were sitting he asked the inspector (O’Dwyer) if he were the inspector and the latter said “Yes.” He (Dr. Woulfe) then said “I want to get a “hearse”; what hours notice do you want for it. The inspector said “in the ordinary course 24 hours notice the inspector then asked him “what train do you want the remains taken by Dr. Woulfe said he didn’t know. He (Dr. Woulfe) then said he had a lot of business to do in town and he (the inspector) told Dr. Woulfe to go down town and do his business and when he came back he would let him know the train?

Mr. Downing—Now was he impertinent insolent or part to Dr. Woulfe? No, that was what was said, Dr. Woulfe appeared to be very excited with a book and pencil in his hand,

Dr Woulfe said everything I swore at the inquiry was untrue and wrote to my employer that my evidence was perjured.

To Mr. Roche—There was no swearing at all at the inquiry.

And don’t you know the difference between telling a lie and perjury are too different things? I know.

And you are still “boots” at the same hotel? I am.

O’Dwyer recalled said in answer to His Honour—Dr. Woulfe did not mention that they were to go by the 6.30 train to Abbeyfeale. That was what I wanted to know and he would not tell me; he mentioned no train at all.

Laurence Cummins gave somewhat similar evidence and

Mrs Byrne gave evidence as to her hearing Dr. Woulfe say as he was leaving by the 6.30 p.m. train that evening in which she and a lady friend were travelling to Adare that he would make it “hot” for O’Dwyer. On her return from Adare she asked Mr. O’Dwyer if he had said or misconducted himself with Dr. Woulfe and he said no and seemed to be greatly surprised.

Mr. Miller, district superintendent, Limerick, sworn said in answer to Mr. Downing that he was stationed in Limerick for seven years and knew Inspector O’Dwyer during that time. He was a very good official, he never met him or heard that he was impudent, or insolent and it appeared that all the people of the district were very fond of him and he was a man that never said to him (witness) “I forgot” to anything he (witness) asked him. He then gave evidence of the inquiry held by him. Sheehan supported the evidence given by O’Dwyer and then he (witness) thought it may be only to his manner Dr. Woulfe objected but he (Dr. Woulfe) said his language was objectionable and insulting; he did not say the language used. Dr. Woulfe stated that O’Dwyer was reading a newspaper at the time and Sheahan denied it.

Dr. Woulfe the defendant sworn stated that a cousin of his had died in the hospital Limerick on the 7th June the day in question and he (witness) was with the hospital doctors attending him until he died. In or about 3 o’clock he went to the railway Station to make arrangements to bring the remains to Abbeyfeale; the platform policeman who was very courteous pointed out the inspector O’Dwyer and he went up the platform and found three men sitting on a truck, they were the inspector and two hotel boots whom he could not identify O’Dwyer had his uniform on and had a newspaper in his hand and like as if he was glancing at it and also having a word with the other men.

Mr. Roche—There is no mistake that it was O’Dwyer himself had the newspaper?

Witness—No mistake whatever ,there is no doubt whatever about that. The first question I asked was “are you the inspector?”; he said he was in a rather careless inattentive manner, I said I wanted a mortuary carriage to take a corpse to Abbeyfeale but I’m not sure that I can be ready by the 6.30 train and I want to know if I am not, would my order stand over till to-morrow. He assumed an impertinent air and said

“what do you want coming here if you don’t know what train you are going by”

and he abruptly turned into his newspaper. It was, I might state to your Honour not to his words I objected but to his manner. I asked him what notice he required and he immediately tuurned into the newspaper and said nothing. The third time I asked him what notice he required and he said “You should have ordered it yesterday.” I then got into a rather begging attitude and appealed to him and asked him again but his manner finally convinced me that it was as well for me to go away and I went away then and there.

Mr. Roche—He says when you came in you said “I want a hearse to bring the remains to Abbeyfeale?

Witness—I never thought that anything but a horse-drawn van was a hearse and not a railway carriage. (Laughter.) [An error that switched up lines of text has been corrected.]

Mr. Roche—He didn’t say go down and do your business and that he would do his best for you.

Witness—No. Continuing witness said there was no mention of the patient or any word that would suggest that I was a doctor.

Mr. Roche—He further says that you took out a note book and a pencil for the purpose of taking notes?

It was, I might state to your Honour not to his words I objected but to his manner.

Witness—That is absolutely false, I used no note book or pencil on that occasion and there was no possible use of a note book on that occasion. Continuing witness stated that at about 5.30 on that evening after settling with Mr Griffin the undertaker I took out the note book and pencil and asked him (Mr. Griffin) to give and asked him (Mr. Griffin) to give his (O’Dwyers) name and he told him but when he (Mr. Griffin) saw him writing it down he saw what he (witness) was up to that there was a complaint and appealed to him (witness) not to make any complaint against him (O’Dwyer) and he (witness) said “that those people should learn their manners; Mr. Griffin had got everything with regard to the funeral arrangements at 5.30; he (witness) came from the hospital to the railway station in the funeral procession; the sons on Richard Woulfe, the deceased were in the procession; when they got to the station Mr. Griffin had the remains put into the mortuary van and he (witness) got into a 3rd class carriage and it was so warm he went to the far end and sat down smoking very little and taking very little notice of what was going on, Patk. Woulfe son of the deceased was at the side of the carriage next the people and he called O’Dwyer and said they were taking home their dear dead and would he lock the door as they wanted to have a private conversation; he (witness) did not know what happened then; he took not notice; two ladies got into the carriage, they were courteous to O’Dwyer and he (O’Dwyer) was more courteous to them than he was to him (witness); he never spoke to O’Dwyer after till he examined him on the 26th June at the enquiry; the result of the inquiry was communicated to him (witness) at his request;

he afterwards got it published in the “Liberator” and had it sent to various officials;

he wrote a letter to the Manager of the Glentworth hotel on the 4th October complaining of Sheehan’s evidence which he knew to be false; he asked him (the Manager) not to deal harshly with Sheehan. He did not write to the complainant against Sheahan from June until October because he never had such a busy summer between his own district and locum tenens in another but he never left it out of his memory; that letter was written purely on moral grounds.

Mr. Downing—You had such a busy time last Summer you will be able to pay us heavy damages if there is a decree got against you (Laughter).

The witness in reply to Mr. Downing said he went to Limerick once or twice a year.

You who go to Limerick once or twice a year seem to take an extraordinary interest in the travelling public? I wouldn’t consider it an extraordinary interest but I’d rather see a properly conducted railway line than an improperly conducted one between Limerick and Tralee.

You want to constitute yourself the champion of the public? I don’t want to constitute myself a champion of the public, but I believe in the action which I took that I have done one man’s part in the interests of the public. I would not at all call myself a champion for I consider I only did my duty as a member of the public.

Mr. Downing—And this terrible language is what might be used to any member of the public without complaint?

Witness—I made no complaint of any words he used but of his manner and nothing else and the fact that his manner prevented me from dealing with him I had no personal resentment against him, there is no malice in me.

Mr. Downing—Your action was all in the public good.

Witness—To put down a public nuisance for my own good and the public good.

In reply to a further question witness said Mr. Miller told him that O’Dwyer was a good official and he (witness) said he would take him as he found him.

Then you had some personal resentment? No I had no personal spite.

Why did you take it on yourself so? I was not going to rely on what others tell me.

You could not rely on Mr. Miller for a character of that man, but rather than that you take up this question of the 7th June and reported it in the interests of the public?

If it was an isolated case I probably would not have reported it but unfortunately it was not.

His Honour—What about others?

Witness—I have had a very unpleasant experience otherwise on that line between Limerick and speaking generally if a person has any luggage on the line while it may not be rendered quite useless it is always injured and presents the appearance of having been very roughly handled by very careless porters. Coming to particular instances he was at Limerick railway Station on 26th June when an official there gave him impertinence and at Abbeyfeale sometime before another used language bordering on the obscene.

Mr. Downing—You had no rudeness or incivility from O’Dwyer before? No.

You have it from Mr. Miller that he was a good official and still you reported him? Yes as I said I take them as I find them but I said distinctly to Mr. Miller not to have the man injured but reprimanded.

A month again after that you got copies of that notice sent to various officials?

Certainly because Limerick Station is the place above all places where I have found railway officials rude and impertinent and I wanted to send it amongst them.

Continuing the witness said the officials on that line were frequently rude to him but he did not report the others because he did not know the mode of procedure. He denied saying in the railway carriage that he would make it “hot” for O’Dwyer but merely took his name and the date.

Is it true in substance that you said it?—It is not; I didn’t use the words.

Then was Mrs. Byrne telling the truth when she swore it?

Witness—I don’t want to convey that she took a false oath at all; what she states was roughly true.

This concluded the evidence and Messrs Downing and Roche, having spoken on either side.

His Honour said he would dismiss O’Dwyer’s action on the merits and award Sheahan £5 5s 0d without costs.

RAILWAY INSPECTOR’S SLANDER ACTION.

Doctor Sued at Kerry Assizes.

THE RESULT.

At the Kerry Spring Assizes on Tuesday, before Lord Justice Moloney.

Jeremiah O’Dwyer, Inspector, in the employment of the G. S and W. Railway at Limerick, appealed against the decision of the County Court Judge in dismissing an action for slander against Timothy Woulfe M.D. Tarbert. The slander was alleged to be contained in a notice published in the “Liberator” that the Inspector’s conduct was not all that it should be.

Serjeant Sullivan, K C, and Mr. D McC Downing (instructed by Mr. P. J. O’Donnell solr.) appeared for the appellant.

Mr. E J McElligott, K. C. and Mr. B. Roche (instructed by Mr. T. Woulfe, solr), for the respondent.

The defendant, in his evidence, stated that the paragraph which was published in the ‘Liberator’ first was afterwards sent to every newspaper circulating between Limerick and Tralee.

Serjeant Sullivan—I believe that (the “Liberator”) enjoys immunity. They were safe in publishing it.

After hearing further evidence, his Lordship deferred judgment.

The defendant was a young medical Officer in Tarbert in this county, who had perhaps an exaggerated view of his own importance …

On Wednesday morning, his Lordship in giving judgment, said the case was of some public importance. The plaintiff was a man who had risen in the service of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company from the position of porter to that of inspector at Limerick and for 25 years he had borne an excellent character in the service of the Company. The defendant was a young medical Officer in Tarbert in this county, who had perhaps an exaggerated view of his own importance, and who perhaps did not consider there was a duty also cast upon a professional gentleman of kindness and consideration for those with whom he came in contact. He referred to the letters written by defendant to the railway authorities in which he accused plaintiff of being in manners and conduct insolent, impertinent and immoral and expressed the hope that his adversaries would deal with him. He came to the conclusion that Dr. Woulfe was not justified in the language he used against the plaintiff. The matter was fully investigated by the Superintendent at Limerick, who came to the conclusion that Dwyer had not been lacking in his duty and that the case was a most exaggerated one. His Lordship fully agreed with that view. He had no difficulty in deciding that Dr. Woulfe’s letter of complaint to the railway company was a libel on the plaintiff, but after reviewing the evidence at great length he came to the conclusion “with every desire possible to give relief to the plaintiff,” that he would not be justified in holding that defendant was activated by malice and consequently affirmed the dismiss.

Replying to Sergeant Sullivan,

His Lordship said he held the publication of Dr. Woulfe’’s letter in the newspapers was no libel. He deferred the consideration of the question of costs.