From the Archives: Was Mayo man who drank poteen in ‘possession’ of the illicit spirits?

By Tom Gillespie

ON Wednesday, January 23, 1935, what was described as a ‘peculiar’ poteen prosecution was heard at Castlebar District Court, when Martin Cunningham, Cumauns, Burren, was charged with being in ‘possession’ of illicit spirits in as much as he had admitted consuming a naggin of poteen.

Supt. Flynn prosecuted and Mr. P. Durcan, solicitor, defended.

Supt. Flynn said he was proceeding under Section 23 of the Illicit Distillation Act. The proceeding was unusual in as much as the Statue could not produce the usual exhibits.

The defendant was found under the influence of drink on the road at Lenavee on January 14. The Guard who met him on the roadside questioned him and he admitted having consumed some poteen some time before the Guard came on the scene. Moreover Cunningham told the Guards that he drank poteen and that he had paid for it.

Subsequently he made a statement in writing, which he signed, and in the course of his written remarks he admitted having taken poteen.

Guard O’Shea gave evidence that he was on duty on January 14 in the vicinity of Burren.

Supt.: Did you meet the defendant? - Yes.

Was he accompanied by anyone? - Yes. I think a man named Philbin.

What happened when you met the two of them? - I was going to search them, and as I was searching Cunningham I got a strong smell of poteen from his breath.

What condition was he in? - Well there was a strong smell of poteen and I told him that he had poteen taken.

What did he say to that? - He said: “I drank it all right two hours ago.”

What did you do then? - I cautioned him and he made a statement.

Mr. Durcan: I object, my submission is that you must not read that statement unless you prove that it was made in a voluntary manner by the defendant and that no inducement whatever was held out to defendant.

Supt.: I will try to convince his worship that it was made in quite a voluntary way. Was the statement made as a result of any inducement, threat or promise made by you?

Guard O’Shea: No.

Did you offer him any inducement or promise him anything if he made that statement? - No.

Prior to caution what did this man say? - “I took poteen all right two hours ago in a house up the village.”

You thought it was your duty to caution him? - Yes.

Guard Milligan was a witness? - Yes.

Were you present when Sergt. Cahill mentioned that the defendant had poteen taken and Cunningham said he would admit that. - Yes.

Did Sergt. Cahill say anything else? He said: “Don’t you know it is an offence to drink poteen?” And defendant said he did and that it would only mean a few months in Sligo Jail.

You are quite sure he held out no inducement to the defendant? - No.

Did he tell you what he paid for the poteen? - One shilling for the naggin.

Was the other Guard there all the time? - Yes.

Did he question the defendant? - No.

Cross-examined, Guard O’Shea said that Guard Mulligan did not question defendant at all.

Could he have asked him anything? - Not while I was there.

If defendant states that Guard Mulligan mentioned a cell is he right? - No.

What did you state to the defendant? - I told him not to say anything that would be used in evidence against him.

And defendant made a statement admitting he had drunk poteen? - He did.

And he signed it on the road side? - Yes.

Did Philbin not tell you that he had been to town and had some drink? - No, he said nothing.

You have him charged with being in possession of poteen at the time? - Yes.

Was he actually in possession of poteen? - No, but he swore he had it taken.

He told you that he had the poteen two hours before that. Will you swear that he was in possession then? - Yes, on his own statement.

But can you swear he was? - I swear he was in possession of it by drinking it.

If the man had taken gin would you swear it was poteen? - No, it would be drink then.

Mr. Durcan contended that the man was not in ‘possession’ of poteen at the time.

The Justice said that the smell from the man himself was the very same as evidence regarding the smell from a bottle.

Mr. Durcan said the defendant might have taken any kind of alcohol.

Guard Mulligan swore that the defendant said he got poteen that evening. There was a strong smell of poteen from the defendant’s breath.

Supt.: Did the defendant then sign a statement, which was read to him? - Yes.

Was he under the influence of drink? - He was, but he was not incapable.

You had no doubt that the defendant had poteen taken? - No.

Cross-examined, witness said the defendant refused to state where he got the drink.

Mr. Durcan: Did you not threaten him if he did not tell you? - No, I knew it was no use. He was laughing in our faces.

Did you not tell him that if he did not state where he got the drink he might find himself in a cell? - No such thing.

He was drunk then, but not drunk enough to tell you where he got the drink? - I don’t believe he would have told us he had poteen taken only he was drunk. If he wasn’t drunk he would have said it was porter he had.

Do you swear that you can smell a man’s breath and get a smell of drink from it two hours after he had taken it? - I do, If the man had not food taken.

Mr. Durcan asked for a direction on the grounds that the defendant was not in actual possession of poteen.

The Justice refused to give a direction, and defendant was called to give evidence.

Replying to Mr. Durcan, Cunningham said he did not know what kind of liquor he got.

Cross-examined by Supt. Flynn, he said he could not swear it was poteen he took on the day in question.

Supt.: How much did you pay for the liquor? - A shilling for a naggin.

You asked for poteen: - I did.

And it looked like poteen? - It did.

And you don’t know whether it was poteen or not? - I don’t.

Didn’t you tell the Guards it was poteen? - I did.

Why don’t you admit it was poteen? - Because I don’t know.

Mr. Durcan said that the defendant was never in possession of the poteen. He took it ‘straight’ from the glass.

Answering the Justice, defendant said he was 21 years of age. He was going to play a game of cards when he took the poteen.

Justice: You are young to be at that game? - Yes.

The Justice said the offence was fully proven, but taking into account that the defendant told the truth on the night in question he thought he would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Defendant was directed to produce written proof to the next court that he had taken the pledge against drinking poteen.