The story of a court case, Distillery and Irish Cup medals

The final was played at the Ulster Cricket Ground, Ballynafeigh, on Saturday, March 27.

The Distillery team included Matt ‘Daddy’ Wilson - aged about 44 - and his son Bob - about 19 - both full-backs and the only time in Irish Cup history that a father and son have played together in a final.

Matt was one of five Irish internationals - the others being Sam Johnston (who at age 15 in 1882 was the youngest ever player to win a cap), Billy Crone, John Condy and John McClatchey. Bob Wilson and Bob Baxter (of whom more later) would go on to win international caps.

Another unique feature of this final was that the Limavady team included three pairs of brothers – John and Tom Fleming, Mat and Bob Douglas and Jack and Joe Sherrard; while they boasted three internationals in Joe Sherrard, Oliver Devine and Tom McLean. Jim Allen would win a cap following year.

In the first half, Limavady had a goal disallowed as the ball was deemed to have been out of play before McLean, on the Limavady wing, had crossed it into Bob Douglas.

In the second half, Distillery decided that attempting to dribble in the mud was futile and switched to what we would today call long-ball tactics. This proved effective and the Limavady goal came under siege for the first 15 minutes until James Johnston scored.

There were no further goals.

There was no mention in any of the match reports in the press of any rough play or misconduct and the expectation at full-time would have been that Distillery would be presented with the trophy at the IFA annual general meeting in May, as was the custom at the time.

A few days later, however, a letter-writer said that: “Every person in the ground was disgusted, and not only thought the match rough, but brutal, as it was not football at all, but who could knock one another down”.

We know from evidence given in the subsequent court proceedings that, during the game, Limavady’s Douglas (it is not clear which one) had jumped on the back of Distillery half-back Alex McArthur, who had then struck Douglas in the eye and drawn blood. Limavady lodged a protest after the match, which was considered by the IFA Committee at its regular meeting on the following Wednesday.Ordinarily in this era, a successful protest would have resulted in the IFA ordering a match to be replayed, but on this occasion, and without precedent, the committee decided: “That the Cup and medals be withheld for this year owing to the conduct of members of both teams in the match on 27th March”.

In addition, McArthur was suspended for two years for verbal and physical intimidation of an opponent.This punishment prompted an anonymous letter to the Belfast Morning News disputing the Association’s powers to take such drastic action.

‘Lover of Justice’ pointed out that the match had been under the control of the referee, who had allowed it to conclude with Distillery as winners - and argued that, under the rules, it was the responsibility of the referee to deal with any player guilty of ungentlemanly conduct by ordering him off the field, which neither had he done nor brought any complaint before the Association.

It was not fair, argued the correspondent, to punish the entire team for the actions of one player and the punishment even of that player was too severe.

When Association secretary John McAlery gave his report to the annual general meeting in the Lombard Hall, Belfast, on May 6, he referred to both Distillery and Limavady bringing “disgrace on the Association game and disgust to the spectators by conduct of the most outrageous description. Blows were struck and blood spilled”.

He explained that “believing the match was not played in a friendly spirit, but was won by intimidation” the committee had resolved to withhold the cup and medals. This was met with applause, and when the Distillery representative Bob Baxter, who had played in the final and was also a member of the IFA committee, objected and moved an amendment to remove these references from the secretary’s report he received only five votes from the 50 present at the meeting - and instead a vote of confidence in the committee was passed almost unanimously.This was not the end of the matter. Some six months later, sitting in the Crumlin Road Courthouse, Mr David Ross heard the case of ‘Robert R. Baxter v. John McAlery and others’ (i.e. the committee of the IFA), in which Baxter sought the sum of £2 in lieu of an Irish Cup winner’s medal, which he alleged had been withheld “on a pretence”.

During the proceedings, the referee Robert Kennedy testified that he had decided that the match had been won by Distillery, but the umpires had disagreed and that he had immediately received a protest from Limavady stating that the Distillery play was so rough that they were intimidated.

Until changes to the laws of the game in 1891, the referee stood at pitch-side and adjudicated between two on-field umpires.

Kennedy told the court that he had seen several men knocked down but did not see McArthur striking an opponent and that, while the play was pretty rough, it was not the roughest game he had ever seen.

Alexander Dill, one of the umpires, said that, in his opinion, the match was not played according to the rules of the Association, and that he had never seen a rougher game: both clubs were equally rough and equally broke the rules and therefore there was no winner.

In Dill’s view, the Limavady protest represented an appeal against the decision of the referee to award the match to Distillery.

The judge adjourned the hearing so that he could look into the rules of the Association. The following morning, he summed up the case as a question of whether or not anything was done to disqualify Distillery from winning the cup.

He decided that, although the game was a rough one, the IFA’s rules were against the defendants in the case and decided in favour of Baxter.

Counsel for Baxter asked for a decree for the £2 claimed, which could be reduced to a penny if the medal was given to the plaintiff. Mr Ross agreed, but reduced the sum to £1.The IFA immediately signalled that it was not going to accept the court ruling - counsel for the Association said that it would change the rules and would be glad to get rid of the Distillery Club if they resigned as a result.

In the end, though, despite being “strongly advised” to appeal the court’s decision, “no member could spare the necessary time to carry on the litigation” and so the Committee resolved as follows: “That each member of the Distillery F.C. who took part in the final tie last season, and who applies for a medal, be tendered in lieu thereof one pound...” and that “any person who shall after this date take legal proceedings against any member of the Irish Football Association for a medal or cash in lieu thereof shall be dealt with under rule 11 of rules of the Association”.

IFA rules, to this day, do not permit members to refer disputes to the courts.

Eventually, all 11 members of the Distillery team were paid the £1 awarded by the court, but no medals were presented.

The question arises, then, as to whether or not Distillery actually won the 1886 Irish Cup.

According to the IFA’s own report to its AGM - and, subsequently, its court testimony - neither team won the Cup. But the court found that, under the IFA rules, Distillery should have won it.

While the IFA complied with the order to pay compensation to the Distillery players, it did not provide medals and it seems that the cup was never presented to the Whites.

Whatever the situation at the time, however, the Association has subsequently recognised Distillery as winners. The engraved plates on the base of the original trophy, which now resides at IFA headquarters at Windsor Park, include Distillery’s name as the 1885–86 winners (which presumably was done fairly soon, since photographs appear to show that these plates were engraved on the trophy from the start). And later IFA publications also record Distillery as the 1885–86 winners.