AUGUST 14TH, 1912: A meeting of socialists, chaired by Countess Markievicz, in Custom House square in Dublin 1911, ended in confusion when police tried to arrest one of the speakers, Emea Moloney, when she described King George V as a "scoundrel". Both women ended up in court, Moloney charged with provoking a breach of the peace and Markievicz with assaulting a policeman. A magistrate named Macinerney gave the following judgment:
There was some uncertainty or ambiguity about the language used on the evidence of the police, but that was removed by the witnesses for the defence. Mr Sheehy Skeffington, in answer to Miss Moloney’s counsel, said: “Miss Moloney said that ‘not only was King George the descendants of scoundrels, but he himself was the greatest scoundrel in Europe’.” He added: “‘I do not intend,’ Miss Moloney said, ‘to make any attack on him in a personal sense.’ She had said that much when the police began to move in. I heard no more.” There were suggestions that she said something more, but there was no evidence of it. I am of opinion that this language used at a public meeting in a public place in the City of Dublin was an offence under the Act to which I have referred. She did not err in ignorance of the law, because she said that Mr Carpenter was sent to jail for saying that the King was the descendant of a scoundrel, before she added the language testified to by Mr Skeffington, which I need not repeat. Thereby she challenged the law, and in the ordinary course I should feel bound to impose the sentence she invited. I refrain from doing so, however, in consideration of her sex, and of her disclaimer of an intention to refer to the King personally – which, though no excuse in law, is something that I think I may take into account, but my chief reason for adopting this course is that I am unwilling to add a painful element to the present recollection and affectionate remembrance associated with the King’s visit to Dublin [in July]. Therefore, though I find the charge proved, I shall not impose any penalty.
Referring to the charge of assault preferred by Constable Patrick Smith (226 C) against the Countess Markievicz, Mr Macinerney said - The evidence of the constable in this case was that when he was coming up to the platform to arrest Miss Moloney the people on the platform tried to prevent him, and the defendant gave him two kicks in the chest. Henry Costello and Paul Gregan, who were examined for the defence, swore that there was no truth in that statement, that the defendant never lifted her foot at all, whereas the Countess, in giving evidence in support of her cross-case against the constable , admitted that she may have struck him with her foot when she was tilted back, but that she did not deliberately kick him.
Costello and Gregan were not in a position to see what occurred, because Gregan was in the crowd, and only saw over people’s heads, and Costello was at the opposite side of the lorry [platform]. The common case was that there were at least eight people on the platform, who must have seen what occurred, and none of them came forward as witnesses. Therefore, I consider the charge against the defendant proved. Interfering with a policeman in the discharge of his duty is a serious offence, but the charge here is one of common assault.
I have frequently to deal with cases of assault on the police, and when it is a serious matter I deal severely with it, but when it is only a trifling assault, or the person is charged for the first time, I generally let him off with a caution, and I do so in this case . . .
As to the cross-summons brought by the Countess against Constable Smith for assault . . . I dismiss the case.
http://url.ie/25rv