To the Editor of the Limerick Echo,
Dear Sir,
As requested by Father Casey, PP, during the recent meeting of the United Irish League Executives for the City and County of Limerick held in the Town Hall, I hereby request the publication of the following correspondence regarding my farm. The first letter is from Mr Daniel Moloney, and it was read at the last meeting of the East Limerick Executive. It is necessary for me to provide my reply in the interest of fair play.
[Letter from Daniel Moloney]
[Reply from John Moloney]
Pallusgrean, June 8th, 1904
To the Chairman of the United Irish League Convention, Limerick.
Sir,
A letter was read at the Kilwallock Executive meeting recently from the occupant of my evicted farm at Coologue, Pallasgrean, Mr Daniel Moloney, stating his case. As he never appeared in person before the United Irish League nor consented to submit the case to arbitration as required by the League, it was hardly fair to me to consider his letter in my absence without giving me any notice. Therefore, I claim the right to reply.
I will treat his letter with fairness and respond to each point raised. Let the matter and statements in both letters be thoroughly investigated.
Daniel Moloney states that a year ago, he was exonerated from any blame in this matter by the League. That is incorrect. He never agreed to arbitration, and he was never exonerated. He claims that I am not an evicted tenant at all and challenges me to produce the eviction writs. I was evicted twice, not once — first through an eviction made easy, and secondly under a caretaker agreement. The eviction writs are in the sheriff’s office, and I know no evicted tenant, including myself, who has those writs in their possession. This is a mere quibble. The tenancy was in my late wife’s name in conjunction with mine. It does not matter whose name it was in.
He mentions my private dealings with my late wife regarding our worldly affairs and how she made a will appointing Mr M. Hayes, her father, as the sole executor. He claims that Mr Hayes declined to take out probate due to the property being involved for more than its value. That is untrue. Mr Hayes did take out probate, as can be easily proven, and the property was never involved for more than its value or even half its value.
Regarding his statement that Mr Maurice Hayes should question him before the League, it is merely a quibble. Coologue farm is the basis of this case, and Mr M. Hayes is only an executor. Whether it was in my late wife’s name or mine does not matter. He provides a long list of my debts totalling £1,907. That is incorrect. The total amount of my debts can be easily demonstrated. There is a deed specifying them, and the total was over £1,200. This deed was correct and legally binding. He never paid a shilling of those debts, so why does he mention them? Whether I owed £1,200 or £12,000 is immaterial.
The crux of the matter lies in the letter in my own handwriting, as he claims, asking him to take over the farm. That is a matter for investigation. So, why does he avoid arbitration? Any person who refuses arbitration or a full investigation in a matter like this stands self-condemned. If I did not possess a farm, I could not give him one. Therefore, his claim that my consent was necessary is baseless.
Regarding maintenance, I could share a pitiful story and say harsh things, but I will refrain from doing so. As for living with him, I could only do so by selling my birthright or that of my only child for a meagre sustenance. He has no claim on me, and I owe him no money. If I do owe him, let him prove it, and I will arrange for payment from the proceeds of the farm. But he knows well that I do not owe him anything. It is strange that he never mentioned the amount the farm owes him. He should have a record of his own transactions since he knows so much about my debts. Or he should state what he paid when taking over the farm. But he provides no details, which is quite suspicious.
He claims to be prepared to maintain me once I cease annoying him. If the annoyance consists of demanding Coologue house and farm, then he is a naive person if he considers anything less than its full value as sufficient. I am willing to negotiate or barter that claim if necessary. He speaks of “bad advisers” who have influenced me to look out for my own interests. This is childish. I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions. I do not need advice on such matters.
Regarding getting little from bad advisers, what right do I have to expect anything from anyone or any place other than my own house and farm? He alleges that I have been doing my best to boycott him for a long time and that I boycotted him at the Elton fair. I have never done my best to boycott him. I merely expressed my opinion. Before taking any action against him, I sent Mr Harris, the secretary of the East Limerick Executive, to inquire if he was willing to accept arbitration. He did not respond, and I proceeded accordingly. It was a painful decision for me to make. What else could I do or should I have done? I was in a dire situation, and I still am. I am left homeless and penniless. I rely on the kindness of my neighbours in Pallas for a bit to eat and a place to sleep. These people know me as a neighbour and a Nationalist. They are aware of my suffering and show their kindness. The shabby state of my clothes, as I have been unable to change them for the summer like the trees and fields, speaks volumes about my poor condition. I am not a beggar, which explains the tattered state of my garments.
I hope you find this correspondence suitable for publication. Please let me know if you require any further information.
Yours sincerely,
John Moloney
Limerick Echo – Tuesday 14 June 1904
