The Lindsay Murder, 1855
Masthead of the Thursday, November 20, 1856 issue of Lindsay Advocate. (2011.442.1).
Kawartha Lakes had a myriad of newspapers serving many of the towns and villages such as Omemee, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Woodville, and Lindsay in the 19th and early 20th century. In our history of the press, many smaller newspapers didn’t survive very long compared to the longevity of The Lindsay Post and the Watchman-Warder. One such paper is the Lindsay Advocate, started in 1855 by Edward C. Hand which served as a weekly advertiser for residents of Victoria County until Hand sold his equipment to The Canadian Post and Victoria Warder in 1870. Not many of Hand’s papers physically survived and we are fortunate enough to have in our collection two complete issues from November 20 and December 25, 1856. A look at the November 20 issue is the focus of this post as the entire paper covered the trial of a murder committed by a father and son in broad daylight on Kent Street on October 21, 1855.
The Victim and the Accused
John McGinnity, the victim
Very little documentation exists on the life of John McGinnity and who he was and the family that he had in Lindsay. He was born in 1819 and was married to his wife (name unknown) who rushed to the scene of the crime on Kent Street. We know John lived close enough to the crime scene as he was carried to his home where he succumbed to his injuries at the age of 36. John was known throughout the tiny village of Lindsay at the time with many merchants and individuals commenting that they knew of him and his wife. Like many in the 19th century, John was a drinker and we can assume to the point of drunkenness at times — though on the afternoon of his death it’s debated as to whether both he and his murderer where drunk. John did not operate a storefront and was most likely a labourer and it can be assumed from his omission from the 1858 Victoria County directory that he rented his home and did not own it.
Why was John out on Kent Street on this afternoon? It’s likely that John possibly visited an hotel for a drink or two before his plans to go home and turn in for the night. The scene of the murder took place on the south side of Kent Street in front of John Thirkell’s dry goods store — maybe he was out buying some food or supplies at a local store. Or maybe due to his friendly nature he was out and about greeting neighbours and friends on a Sunday afternoon. These questions will remain unanswered.
William and Robert Barlass, the murderers
The Barlass family equally remains mysterious. William owned a saddlery shop on one of the side streets either north of south of Kent. His son Robert, aged 13, helped in the shop and on the day of the murder, purchased two 4 inch long pistols with percussion locks at a local store. William Barlass has been described as “lame” due to an injury and deformity of one of his feet. Compared to John McGinnity, William was a smaller man in stature and would be disadvantaged in a brawl with the former according to witnesses in the trial due to his disability and age.
The Crime
The Location of the Crime on Kent Street
1863 drawing of the south side of Kent Street in between William and Cambridge Streets. Note that these buildings were constructed after the fire and don’t represent what the buildings looked like in 1855.
Evidence and location of many businesses on Kent Street prior to the July 5, 1861 fire is tough to nail down. Throughout the trial, there were no mention of the exact location of the crime, except that it was in front of John Thirkell’s dry goods store that opened in 1854 located on the south side of Kent. Deane & Barragy’s carriage business, John Berry’s Saddlery shop and J. Carew’s dry goods store lined the street at the time of the murder. I can best assume that Thirkell’s shop was located between William and Cambridge Streets on Kent, though this could be incorrect. The south side of Kent past Cambridge were houses and then further down was Thomas Fee’s sawmill, leaving no room for a storefront.
The Murder
This part is tricky as the many witnesses gave varying accounts to the events to that day. I will try my best to synthesize and present what is believed to be accurate. What is very clear is that John McGinnity was standing outside of Thirkell’s store minding his business, not causing any problems around 5 o’clock in the afternoon on a Sunday. With the sun setting, William Barlass crossed the street to where McGinnity was standing and the two shook hands. Hugh Mohin, a wagonmaker, detailed that a Mr. Brady accompanied Barlass and McGinnity — while shaking Barlass’ hand — extended his left hand to shake the hand of Mr. Brady. The witness stated that Mr. Brady did not shake his hand and as McGinnity drew back his hand, he struck Barlass in the face. Questioned by Barlass as to why he was slapped, McGinnity quipped that it was just a joke.
Kent Street 1863. Some witnesses were from the other side of the street. You can see that Lindsay’s main street is quite wide, thus harder for a passerby to hear and see the altercation from the opposite side of the street.
Mr. Mohin does seem to provide a detailed account of the incident. He was standing about six feet away from the men and could hear everything that was said. William Barlass insisted on fighting McGinnity due to Barlass believing that he struck him with force.
“Barlass was in no danger. There was not necessity for him to speak to pistols. It was mere brawls. One of them said, ‘Take it out,’ or ‘Put it out, and I’ll fight you fair.’” — Hugh Mohin on the stand.
William’s son came after the altercation started, according to John Tully, a Lindsay tailor who corroborated the account of Hugh Mohin. Once Robert Barlass arrived, his father handed him the the pistols from his pockets. Mohin, who at the time was still next to the men, spoke a few words to them to defuse the situation and both men agreed to part ways and go home. William then asked his son for one of the pistols back that he gave to him earlier. Although McGinnity was set to walk home, he took this action by William as a threat to his life.
At this time, McGinnity and William began to brawl and wrestle. William Dow, who came out of Thirkell’s store, saw the men clenched together. Being a stranger to Lindsay, Dow didn’t want to become involved in the incident so he started crossing the street. At this time, Barlass had McGinnity’s head in a lock with his arm and his other hand strangling his throat. At this time, a possible crowd started to gather around the men — though this fact varies depending on the witness — with McGinnity’s wife arriving to help separate the two men.
“‘I was going past them on my way to tea. When I got there I saw a crowd…Mrs. McGinnity succeeded partly parting them and shoving her husband back from the other man. I think they were parted.’” — John Barragy while being examined by Mr. O’Reilly for The Crown.
All witnesses in the case indicated that Mrs. McGinnity did arrived when the men were brawling and tried to separate the men. At this time, it appears that the two men were not fighting or entangled any longer, but there is a chance that McGinnity and Barlass continued to say words to one another.
The Shot
“Take that. Damn you,” were the words spoken by Robert Barlass when he fired a single shot point blank at John McGinnity. After the flash of the shot, Robert took a few steps back from McGinnity. Mrs. McGinnity, in shock, saw a pitchfork that was leaning against Thirkell’s store and threw it at the boy. Robert dodged the pitchfork and was instructed by his father to leave and go back to their saddlery shop. While John’s wife was screaming at his assailant, he dropped his right arm in pain and made his way into Thirkell’s shop, followed quickly by his wife. He collapsed to the ground near the front counter of the store. Supported by his wife, John on his knees was bleeding profusely from the bullet hole in the right side of his body.
Coming to the scene was Dr. Joshua Fidler, one of Lindsay’s doctors at the time. Coming into the store he quickly inspected the wound to find that a perfectly round hole the size of about an inch and a half in circumference was located between the 8th and 9th rib. The bullet entered in a downward direction. As the hole was a perfect circle and the bullet wound in a downward direction, this would indicate that the bullet was shot at point blank by Robert.
“In order to make a perfectly round opening it would require to be as near as two or three feet. I think if it was five feet away that shot would scatter. The pistol was a small size.” — Dr. Joshua Fidler on the stand.
According to the doctor, John McGinnity was bound to lose his life imminently. Blood began pooling on the floor and he was unable to swallow and speak distinctly, possibly due to blood suffocating him. The bullet most likely punctured his diaphragm and/or liver observed Dr. Fidler. The doctor order McGinnity to be taken home and about five minutes after arriving, John McGinnity died from his injuries around 6:00pm and the Barlass’ were soon apprehended.
The Verdict
Adam Hudspeth. For more information on his life and career, click here.
Adam Hudspeth, defence attorney for the Barlass’, all but admitted that his clients did in fact commit the crime that resulted in the death of John McGinnity. He insisted that the jury should not find William and Robert guilty of murder, but rather Robert be given a verdict of manslaughter due to the absence of malice and premeditation and William an acquittal. From all accounts given by witnesses, this appeal holds merit as the McGinnity and the Barlass’ only met by happenstance.
“It has been established that the boy stood by while his father, who is a cripple, was set upon by a powerful and athletic man who forced him to engage with him, that he might defend himself from his blows and that when old Barlass was in this predicament, his son advanced to his protection, and fired at his assailant. Can you, gentlemen of the jury, say that you see in the act of young Barlass any malice expressed or implied? He was not a party to the quarrel; he had no angry feelings towards McGinnity. He used the weapon, which he had just before received from his father for safekeeping, only to protect that father from the injuries which he felt impending him by the menacing attitude of McGinnity. Just look at the boy, consider his youth, and imagine yourselves as you were at his age, and feel yourselves placed in the trying position which he was in, and say whether he might not have had some excuse, or reason which moved him to the act he committed.” — Adam Hudspeth in speaking to the jury.
The trial of William and Robert Barlass in the killing of John McGinnity on October 21, 1855 concluded with the verdict offered by the jury of their peers. In consideration of the charge of murder against William Barlass, the jury found him not guilty. When considering the charge of murder for Robert Barlass, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter, the lesser of a charge. The jury asked for a strong recommendation for mercy for the young teenager. The jury’s verdict was in line with the conclusion that the judge offered when giving his remarks. The length of sentence given to Robert Barlass is unknown.
Aftermath
Murders did not occur often back in the early days of settlement in Victoria County or Lindsay, its largest population centre. Most of the time, the courts dealt with petty crimes such as theft, swearing, larceny, and public drunkenness. When the crime of murder did occur, it took over the local papers and the communities became invested in the outcome of the trial.
Written by Zac Miller, Archivist