1 General Prison's Board Dublin Castle 25th Jan 1916
367/16
Mountjoy Prison
re Claim by N.C. Laundry
for alleged damage to Wall Chairman I beg to report that the wall
forming the boundary between the grounds
attached to the Medical Officers Quarters
Mountjoy Prison and those of the N.C
Laundry Co was built nearly a Century
ago of an inferior blackcalp laminated
stone. The wall is about 15 feet high
from the prison ground level and 22
inches wide and appears to have been
built without any under surface
foundation. The building mortar
used and the workmanship were of
the poorest quality. I am informed
on reliable authority that the wall
was noticed to have been bulging
and overhanging the prison grounds
for the past 35 years, and I have
made inquiries covering that space
of time and can find no evidence
to show that the Prison Authorities
even planted ivy against the wall,
the seed may have been dropped by
birds, or blown there by the wind, or
the Ivy may have been growing there
at the time the Prison was built. The greater bulk of the ivy was growing
about 11 feet from the Quoin Stone next
to prison and that portion of the wall
is 2 is still standing. Another spray
much smaller had been growing
36 feet from the quion and nearer the
part of the wall which fell as shown
on rough sketch herewith. At the laundry side I noticed
against that part of the wall which
fell a bank of rubbish, earth, and old
brick averaging 3½ feet high which
in my opinion must have exerted
a considerable thrust against the
bulged part of the wall especially
during the exceptionally heavy rain
storm which prevailed on the evening
of the 12th Nov. It appears from the evidence obtain
able that the wall is built about 90
years, or between 30 & 40 years
before the prison, but there is
nothing to show what arrangements
(if any) were entered into between the
parties, regarding this wall at the time
the prison was built.] The plans in
this office show that when the site
for the prison was being plotted
an offer for the exchange or purchase
of the part of the Laundry grounds
was made in order to square out
the prison property. This was not
carried into effect. Consequently
a strip of the laundry garden
about 130 feet by 100 feet fits in
between 3 between the prison grounds
almost to the boundary wall — a
very undesirable & unsatisfactory
Arrangement I strongly
recommend that if possible the
ground in question as Coloured
Yellow and marked A on sheet
herewith be acquired so as to
square out the prison property
and it would be a nice site
for a Deputy Govenors or
Medical Officers residence B. Abraham 4 GENERAL PRISONS BOARD DUBLIN CASTLE,
No. 367 24 Jan 1916 Clerk of Works Please furnish
the full statement
asked for in the
asst. under Secretary's
minute of 22nd inst.
attached JM 24.1.16 5 19th January 1916 Sirs, I am in receipt of your letter of 18th instant which I
am submitting for instructions and will further communicate
with you. Your obedient servant M. Kelly N C Laundry Ltd. North Circular Road, Dubin. 6
Solicitor General
M. Kelly
Jan 1916 NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD, (TOP OF BERKLEY) DUBLIN 18th Jan 1916. M. Kelly Esq. Chief Crown Solicitor's Office, Dublin Castle, DUBLIN> Dear Sir, We are in receipt of yours 13th instant, and in
reply have to say that we are not concerned whether you admit
legal liability at present or not, but this question apart you
are morally liable to us undoubtedly for the tumbling of our
wall. You allowed a heavy growth of ivy which was planted in
your ground to grow to such an extent that the weight of itself
with the enormous amount of water it held and the vibration
caused by the wind during the great gale in November last un—
doubtedly tumbled the wall; and you have since admitted that you
had no right to use our wall for such a purpose as holding up
your ivy, by having the remaining portion of the ivy taken away
in response to our call on you to have this done We have no wish to have litigation with a Government Dept.
over this matter and would be prepared to accept a comparatively
small sum in satisfaction of our claim, especially as we have
already gone to considerable expense in getting the Engineers and
other experts reports as to the cause of the tumbling of the
wall and what conduced to this, and in order to end the matter
we would be glad if you could see your way to pay us something
towards the cost of re—erection, as on the advice we rec—
eived we feel certain that if we have to go into Court we could
enforce our claim for a much larger amount than we would be pre—
pared to accept rather than have the trouble of law proceedings. Yours faithfully N.C. LAUNDRY LTD.