The Clare Journal of Mon 14 Sep 1857 reported a horse race, on the Sabbath, on the strand at Lahinch:
Desecration of the Sabbath. Yesterday the Sabbath was desecrated by a race on the strand at Lahinch for a saddle, value £3. We are glad to learn that all the parties are to be summoned by the police, and we trust the magistrates will, by the infliction of heavy fines, prevent any recurrence of this improper practice.
The matter came before Ennistymon Petty Sessions and the decision of the magistrates was reported in
The Clare Journal on Thur 24 September:
Important Decision. Ennistymon Petty Sessions.
Several respectable parties were summoned for horse-racing on the strand of Lahinch on Sunday week.
On the bench were Pierce Creagh, Esq., Barrister-at-law, in the chair; Francis McNamara Calcutt, M.P., and W.T. McCullagh, R.M., Esqrs.
Mr. Creagh stated that as the case was of public importance he would take the opportunity of explaining why the complaint should be dismissed, and in doing so he did not mean to commit any other magistrate in any way to his (Mr. Creagh’s) opinions on the matter. He then read the Act of Wm. 3d, under which the charge was brought; the preamble of that act set out, that, “Whereas disaffected persons were in the habit of meeting together on the Lord’s day, under pretence of being either engaged in their ordinary callings, or in hurling and other games and sports, &c.” Now, he (Mr. Creagh) considered that the horse-racing at Lahince did not come within or under the terms used in that act – the word horse or horse-racing nowhere occurred in it – it is a penal act, and must be construed strictly. Remedial acts, on the contrary, should, in such remedial acts, be had to the spirit as well as to the letter of such acts; but, ever if the spirit of the Act of Wm. 3d be considered, that act should now be deemed obsolete, inasmuch as its preamble proved it was leveled at the adherents of King James the Second, and to prevent their gatherings on Sundays to plot against William III, under pretence of their being engaged at foot-ball or hurling; but there now being no such seditious or treasonable gatherings, and no Jacobites, and the mischief which the act was intended to prevent no longer existing, the loyal inhabitants and visitors at Lahinch should not be affected by any forced or illegal construction of so penal an enactment, particularly as from the well-known legal rules of construction, which are as much the law of the land as any act of parliament, it cannot be at all held that “horse-racing” is included in the word games and sports. The games and sports there meant are ejusdem generis with the antecedent and preceding words, viz. – “manual and bodily exercises, such as stone-throwing, cricket, foot-ball, hurling,” &c. If the legislature had intended to include horse-racing in the prohibited amusements, they would have done so but not having done so, the case of horse-racing on Sundays, and in the present state of the law, rests altogether with the conscience or good taste of each individual of the community. One persuasion may consider the Sunday a day of austere devotion, whilst another may deem it not wrong to enjoy some recreation in a portion of the afternoon of the Christian Sabbath. But be this as it may, such opinions at either side must not influence, in any way, the magistrate, who is bound to administer the law as he finds it. Perhaps that horse-racing was not practiced in the period of William III, or if then known the legislature may have considered it unnecessary to prohibit its practice to Jacobites, as, by the penal laws then in force, they or Papists could not possess horses of any value; so that in either case it would not be adjudged a game or sport of the same kind with the prohibited games. That act of William required all persons to attend at divine service; but such an enactment could not be held to refer to persons of the so-called Popish religion, for its exercise was then prohibited in Ireland; or if it did apply, it was a penal law to compel them to attend at the then established places of worship; but in this case there is no evidence that the parties here summoned did not attend their own places of worship on the forenoon of the Sunday in question, and there must be a general dismiss of all these complaints.
Here Mr. McCullagh, R.M., re-examined the witnesses for the prosecution, and, on consultation between him and Mr. Creagh, announced his own opinion that the case, as disclosed in the evidence brought forward by the police, did not come under the provisions of the act of William. The several complaints were accordingly dismissed.
Sheila