Published in Cavan, county Cavan
March 3, 1853



At twelve o'clock on Wednesday last, James STORY, Esq., entered the Record Court, and took his seat on the bench for the purpose of swearing in the Grand Jury.

Samuel SWANZY, Esq., called over the list, and the following gentlemen answered to their names: --

Robert BURROWES, Esq., J.P., L.D., Stradone House, foreman,
James HAMILTON, Esq., J.P., Castle Hamilton,
Richard FOX, Esq., J.P., Aubawn,
James Hamiltour(sic) STOREY, Esq., J.P., Lockington,
John Edward VERNON., J.P., Ford Lodge;
Perrott THORNTON, Esq., J.P., Greenville,
Robert John CUMMING, Esq., Crover,
Robert Smyth DICKSON, Esq., J.P., Drummully House
Nathaniel John MONTGOMERY, Esq., Swanlinbar,
James FAY, Esq., Cavan,
Michael PHILLIPS, Esq., J.P., Glenview,
John FINLAY, Esq., J.P., Brackley,
Charles MORTIMER, Esq., J.P., Lakeview,
Abraham BRUSH, Esq., J.P., Drumbar Lodge,
John LITTON, Esq., Quivey,
William TATLOW, Esq., Lismore,
William Armitage MOORE, Esq., Arnmore,
John JOHNSTON, Esq., J.P., Swanlinbar,
Edward M'INTOSH, Esq., J.P., Cootehill,
John GUMLEY, Esq., J.P., Belturbet,
Joseph LYNCH, Esq., J.P. Roebuck,
Robert ERSKINE, Esq., J.P., Cavan,
William SMITH, Esq., J.P., Drumheel.

After the gentlemen were sworn, Edward Ellis MAYNE, Esq., said the sooner they would commence business the better, as they would have little time to spare as the judge was to be in at 2 o'clock on the next day.

The first business entered upon was the passing of the county officers' salaries.

Mr. MASTERSON of Curlismore said the cesspayers were not satisfied with the way the Cavan Jail was managed, that there was no satisfactory account given to them for the stones broken by the prisoners, and also for what was called donations to the prisoners.

Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., Local Inspector, said, as for the donations to the prisoners, it was a small sum given to some of the prisoners that were very useful -- such as weavers, carpenters, &c. -- and that they never got it until they were going out, and for the stones broken there was a large quantity on hands and for what were sold since the last assizes the accounts would be laid before them in the course of the day.

Mr. Masterson -- Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, with regard to a remark made to me on yesterday, that I had a private pique to Mr. GALLOGLY, the governor, I wish to disabuse his mind of it, I declare most candidly, I owe the man no ill well whatever; it was for the mere gratification of the poor distressed cesspayers that I interfered at all.

All of the Grand Jury said they were quite sure Mr. Masterson had no ill-will to Mr. Gallogly.

J. H. Story, Esq., (one of the grand jurors) -- I think Mr. Masterson is quite right in looking after such affairs.

Mr. W. Smith -- We went through Mr. Gallogly's accounts on yesterday and they gave general satisfaction.

Mr. Masterson -- Oh, very well, Mr. Smith, that is a satisfaction.

Foreman -- Mr. Masterson, the accounts of the gaol, and infirmary, and other matters, will be laid before a committee during the day, and if you wish you can attend.

Mr. Masterson -- Thank you Mr. Foreman, I will do so, but as to the infirmary we do not complain, as the expenditure of that institution is printed and we can see them.

Mr. William JOHNSTON's bill for the printing of the revision lists, which amounted to the sum of 124£ was opened.

Mr. Masterson -- I think that is an extraordinary sum for printing and should be looked after. It is not the poor cesspayers that should pay the bill, it is the two county members.

Mr. Mayne -- the third candidate should pay his part also (laughter).

Mr. Masterson -- Had he been returned he might have no objection.

Several of the grand jury said they thought the bill very high.

Mr. Johnston -- It could not be done less, I have to send a great part of it to Dublin to have it done, as the time given is so short.

The bill was ordered to go before a committee.

The next bill handed in to the foreman was from the proprietor of the Anglo-Celt, which amounted to 22£. 11s. 4d, for advertisements published in his journal for county purposes for the last half-year.

Mr. W. A. Moore -- Who ordered these advertisements.

Mr. Mayne -- Each officer connected with the county.

Mr. W. Smith -- What is the necessity of publishing the notice of spirit licenses. Is it not enough to have them printed in placards? Is not each magistrate on the bench supplied with one of those lists.

Foreman -- Will the county have to pay for the election advertisements also.

Mr. Vernon -- Mr. WINTER, our last high sheriff should pay for them (laughter).

Mr. W. Smith (in a whisper across the table to Mr. Caffrey) -- Let the notices of spirit licences be published no more.

The bill was ordered to go before a committee, and having been found correct was passed, and a resolution inserted on the books not to have any more advertisements published in the Anglo-Celt unless those they were compelled to insert by act of parliament ! ! !

At this stage of the proceedings, T. TURNER, Esq., the county engineer, came into court and tendered his resignation to the Foreman, and recommended his deputy as a very fit and proper person for the situation, and hoped Mr. GAHAN would be appointed in his stead.

Mr. Turner said, his reason for resigning was that he could not reside in Cavan, in consequence of having other business to attend to.

The Grand Jury accepted Mr. Turner's resignation and eulogised Mr. Gahan in the highest possible manner, and said they would memorial the Lord Lieutenant to appoint him county engineer.

The Grand Jury proceeded to pass road presentments. Amongst the presentments was one by Andrew MOFFIT of Turebrook for widening a portion of the road from Blacklion to Sligo in the townland of Carrickaboyan. It appeared that this part of the road for 40 years past has been confined to its present width, from 10 to 20 feet. Mr. James BRACKEN, a cesspayer and receiver over the property, opposed the presentment on the grounds that there was no such townland as Carrickaboyan, nor place as Turebrook although there was a locality called Ture, and that the affair was a job, the road being already plenty wide for the traffic thereon. Mrs. BRACKEN stated also that 4£. would be quite sufficient for the worth, if done, instead of 26£., the sum presented ; and referred the grand jury, for proof of what he said, to their own. The grand jury, however, took MOFFIT's map in preference. Mr. JOHNSTON, J.P., said he understood Bracken's reason for opposing the road arose from a hostile feeling to Moffit ; this Mr. Bracken denied, saying he entertained no hostile feeling whatever to Mr. Moffit. The grand Jury then passed the presentment for the full sum, namely 20£.

At a quarter past three o'clock, the hon. Barron(SIC) PENNEFATHER entered the Crown court and took his seat on the bench. The commission was then read by the Clerk of the Crown. (Samuel SWANZY, Esq.,) and the grand jury having been re-sworn.

His lordship addressed them as follows: -- Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, on looking over the calendar I am happy to find that the county is in such a tranquil state, the offences entered therein are only of the ordinary description. There were, however, two cases of murder entered on the list ; in one of these cases there was a finding to that effect by a coroner's jury, but when investigated by you, you might be of opinion that the case only amounted to manslaughter, however, I am satisfied, that you will give those cases all the consideration their importance require. You may now gentlemen, retire to your room, and the clerk of the crown will send up the bills of indictment.

The Grand Jury shortly after returned into court with some true bills, and after some prisoners were arraigned at the bar, the court adjourned.

His Lordship took his seat on the bench this morning shortly after ten o'clock, when the following jury were sworn : --
Hugh BRADY (foreman), William BROWN, James Moore BLACK, John DOBSON, John FARRELLY, Ralph FOSSTER(sic), Alexander HAMILTON, Thos. GELLOOTY, James KELLET, James KELLY, Christopher MORRISON, and Peter M'GAURAN, Esqrs.

Philip CASSIDY and Maurice CASSIDY were put forward on trial for an assault and attempt to rob Patrick MURPHY and John MURPHY, at Mulladuff, on the 3rd of December last. Patrick MURPHY sworn and examined by Mr. SMYLEY, Q.C. -- Was in the fair of Ballyconnell on the 3rd December last; sold two pigs in the fair ; had not the money home with him ; laid it out in the fair ; saw Maurice CASSIDY in the fair ; left the fair about 7 o'clock with his son, John MURPHY; knows a place called Mulladuff, it is in the county Cavan ; we were coming home and heard some noise on the road ; shortly after I got a drive, I then looked round and saw Maurice CASSIDY ; I was then tossed into the ditch ; my clothes were town upon ; does not know who did it ; thinks my pockets were searched ; I had nothing to lose ; is not certain was my pockets searched ; had laid out all my money in the fair.

Prisoner -- Murphy upon your oath did Maurice Cassidy do anything to you.

Witness - I cannot say. I never heard anything to be left to either of your charges before, and I think it was whiskey was the cause of this.

John Cassidy sworn and examined by Mr. HENDERSON -- I recollect to be in the fair of Ballyconnell on the 3rd of December last ; I left the fair with my father ; that evening saw the Cassidys on the road ; Phillip Cassidy knocked my father down.

The court suggested to the jury that from the evidence they could only find the prisoners guilty of a common assault, and on reflection he thought it was better to acquit Maurice Cassidy altogether.

The jury found Philip Cassidy guilty of a common assault.

His lordship ordered Maurice Cassidy to be discharged, and Philip Cassidy to be imprisoned six calendar months.

James Clarke was put forward charged with having written a threatening letter to Samuel CONNOR for the sum of 3s. 9d. which he, the prisoner, said it was due to him.

Samuel CONNOR sworn and examined by Mr. SMYLEY -- The prisoner was my servant for six months, he left me in November last ; there was a dispute between us about 3s. 9d. ; we were before the magistrates, and after the trial was over, the prisoner flourished a black-thorn stick over my head ; I got letter through the Ardlogher post-office, (letter produced and read by the clerk of the crown) which is as follows: --

"DEAR SIR, -- Take notice, I now take the liberty of informing you that I am under the necessity of visiting you in a cimilar(sic) circumstance that I am lately acquainted of, concerning the wages that is disputed betwixt you and James CLARKE, which is only 3s. 9d., which I wonder a man of your concience(sic) would be guilty of and if put me to the trouble of visiting you, you may have your coffin prepaired(sic) and in it, or if you don't I will put you in it, pistol and ball, so if you wish to avoid such trouble pay said James Clarke his wages. It is the truth to you I tell.

"I will blow out your brains and send you down to hell to keep company with your grand master hell. It is there he will welcome you, and all the dammed(sic) orange crow.

"No more at present, but remains your only antagonest(sic)


"I have this grand authority from the right honourable Mrs. Maguire.

"I am the only one by right that will put your life and soul to hell a flight.

"To Mr. Samuel Connor of Clinkent,
County of Cavan, Ardlogher,
care of Mr. Joseph DENHAM of Macen."

Examination continued -- I know the handwriting to be that of the prisoner's ; in the letter there is the shape of a coffin, it is coloured red ; there is the same colouring in a copybook found in the prisoner's box.

Mary MONTGOMERY sworn and examined by Mr. HENDERSON -- Knows the prisoner ; he lived with me up to Holantide ; does not recollect when he was made a prisoner of ; before he left me I saw a letter in his hand holding it to the fire ; observed there was on empty space on it, and I now observe a coffin and pistols in that space on the letter.

Prisoner -- Was not I working on the hill with your son, and how could I get time to write letters?

Witness -- Oh, Jemmy, you could write when you liked.

Constable FARMER examined by Mr. SMYLEY -- Recollects going to Mr. Montgomery's house ; saw the prisoner there ; he opened his box for me ; I found a copybook in it ; I examined and found paint on it ; the paint on the letter was the same as that on the copybook.

Thomas COURTNEY examined by Mr. HENDERSON -- I am schoolmaster of the Cavan jaol(sic) ; am acquainted with the handwriting of the prisoner ; became acquainted with his handwriting in the gaol(sic).

The prisoner was undefended, and when asked had he anything to say for himself, he said he never wrote the letter, that it was some person that owed him a spite that done it.

The Jury found the prisoner guilty.

James Collins was put forward charged with having, on the 28th of June, 1852, at Bailieborough, killed and slain Patrick REILLY.

Peter HOY examined by Mr. Smyley -- Lives in Bailieborough ; saw Patrick REILLY in town that night ; he appeared to have taken some drunk ; he was a little hearty ; two men came up to him ; the prisoner is one of them ; the other man is away ; they asked him for a treat, and he (deceased) refused ; they threatened to take the life of deceased ; I went home and went to bed ; in about half an hour heard a man was killed ; it was Patrick Reilly that was killed.

Catherine OWEN examined by Mr. Henderson -- Lives in Bailieborough ; was in the street the night deceased lost his life ; I saw him about nine or ten o'clock that night walk down the street ; I heard people coming after him, and looked round and saw five men ; they were all in a knot ; saw them knock the deceased down and kick him ; I cried out, are you going to murder the man ; deceased crept up as far as Mr. WILLIAMSON's ; they knocked him down again and kicked him all about the head ; I called out but could see no person ; I then saw a man named CAMPBELL ; I called upon him to go and save the deceased, but he would not ; I cried out for the police ; they then ran away ; Mr. BAILEY, the sub-inspector, came up after ; I knew some of the party ; I saw Reilly with a man named M'CANN.

Henry CAMPBELL sworn and examined -- Knows Margaret Owens ; saw James COLLINS strike the deceased ; saw five or six men about him ; saw deceased knocked down when I was five or six yards from Mrs. Owens's ; they were all quarrelling ; Mr. Owens called upon me, but I was afraid to go near them.

To the prisoner -- My reason for saying I knew nothing about the matter was, because I was not sworn, and did not like trouble.

John REILLY sworn and examined by Mr. Henderson -- Heard their(sic) was a fight ; went out in the street ; saw Patt CARROLAN knocking deceased down, and saw the prisoner Collins striking him also ; assisted to raise deceased up ; he was snoring at the time ; Mr. KING told me to leave down the man, and found that his breathing was very weak ; I helped Captain Bailey and the policemen with deceased to the barracks ; he was then dead.

Peter M'CAAN(sic) examined -- Recollects the 29th of June last ; lives in Bailieborough ; ran out of the house and saw James Collins, Mathew M'Cabe, and others beating the deceased ; saw Collins boxing him ; knew the prisoner before, but did not know deceased.

To a juror (Mr. J. KELLY) -- It was about nine or ten o'clock ; all the shops were not closed.

James S. BAILEY, Sub-Inspector, sworn and examined -- I am stationed in Bailieborough ; recollects the night of the occurrence ; I was not at the barracks at the time deceased was beat ; when I heard of the occurrence, I brought out a party of the men under me ; it was about a quarter to 11 o'clock at the time ; the prisoner was on the street when I went down, he looked suspicious, I took him into custody and brought him to the barracks ; I met Dr. MOORE and he came with me to the barracks also ; I made a search for CARROLL, but could not get him.

Mark MOORE, Esq., M.D., sworn and examined by Mr. SMYLEY -- I was in the barracks when deceased came in ; there were marks over and under the right ear. I made a post mortem examination ; there was a large extravasation(sic) of blood, on the brain, which caused his death ; a kick would cause the extravasation.

The case for the crown closed.

The prisoner called upon Mr. Thomas CHAMBERS of Bailieborough for a character.

Mr. CHAMBERS said he knew the prisoner for the last six or seven years, and had him in his own employment for some time and never knew anything bad of him before.

Mr. John FARRELLY (a juror) who knew the prisoner also gave him a good character.

The judge charged the jury, and stated that the prisoner was only indicted for manslaughter, the grand jury having ignored the indictment which charged him with murder.

The jury after a short deliberation brought in a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.

All the other cases being of no interest, we give the rule of court, which is as follows: --

James Collins -- Charged with the murder of Patrick Reilly. Guilty of manslaughter -- transported ten years.

Denis Farrelly, Phillip McCormick, and Thomas Gearty -- Charged with having caused the death of Terence Farrell. No bill.

Margaret Cooke -- Charged as an idle and disorderly person, having no settled place of residence. Not guilty - discharged.

Bridget M'Cabe, and Catherine Briody -- Charged as idle and disorderly persons, having no settled place of residence. Not guilty -- discharged.

Hugh Brennan -- Charged with having in his possession a Mare that was stolen from James Carten(Carton?) -- Submitted -- Transported for ten years.

Phillip Cassidy -- Charged with waylaying Patrick and John Murphy on the evening of the 3rd Dec., and assaulted and knocked them down.

Jane Moore - Charged with stealing a quantity of Cotton and other articles from the shop of William ELLIOTT, of Arva. Transported for ten years.

William King -- Charged with eloping from the Cavan Workhouse with a suit of clothes, the property of the Guardians. Guilty.

James Murphy -- Charged with stealing a coat, the property of Thomas James MULVANY of Belturbet. Not guilty - discharged.

Philip Smith -- Charged with robbing Owen M'DANIEL on the high road, of a purse containing three pounds sixteen shillings and sixpence. No bill.

Mary Shinan -- Charged with having in his possession three shirts, knowing them to be stolen. No prosecution.

James Lee -- Charged with having in his possession two shirts which were stolen. Guilty - Transportation for seven years.

John Stewart -- Charged with stealing a suit of clothes, the property of the Guardians of the Cootehill Union. Submitted -- Confined, six months, hard labour.

Bridget O'Brien -- Charged with stealing a suit of clothes, the property of the guardians of the Cootehill Union. Submitted -- Confined six months, hard labour.

Mary Delap -- Charged with having in her possession two geese that were stolen. Guilty --- Confined, three months.

James Clarke -- Charged with having written a threatening letter to Samuel CONNOR. Guilty -- Confined, 18 months' hard labour.

James Connelly -- Charged with stealing a quantity of linen yarn. Guilty -- Confined six months.

Mary Dolan -- Charged with stealing from Owen M'MURRAY the sum of seven pounds sterling. Guilty - Confined six months.

Maurice Cassidy -- Charged with waylaying and attempting to rob Patrick MURPHY and John MURPHY. Not guilty - Discharged.

Bernard Connelly -- Charged with stealing four (?) head of cattle from Mrs. Margaret HOWE. Guilty-- Confined 18 months.

Philip Fitzpatrick -- Charged with stealing a suit of clothes from Cavan Workshouse. Guilty.

Friday, Feb. 25, 1853.
(Before Chief Justice Monahan.)

The Right Hon. the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock this morning, and proceeded(sic) immediately with the appeals. The first heard was that of

Wilson, Appellant ; Benjamin Armstrong (Attorney), respondent.

His Lordship directed that three jurors, namely, Messrs. GRIFFITH, CLEMENGER, and BLACK, should be sworn in the case, it appearing that a question as to facts would arise.

Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG, the respondent, was sworn and examined. He stated that the appellant, Mr. WILSON, was a tenant on a property near Bailieborough belonging to Mr. and Mrs. HASSARD, two very litigious persons. The Hassards took proceedings against Wilson to evict him from his farm when Wilson applied to him (respondent to take the necessary steps for his defence. He (respondent) did so, and succeeded in defeating the landlord. His bill of costs, ... amounting to 12£ odd, which appellant refused to pay, was the matter now in dispute, and for which he (Mr. A.) obtained a decree in the barrister's court.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnston -- Did not promise respondent to apprise him before filing the declaration -- thought it unnecessary. (Here two letters were produced, which Mr. A. admitted to have been written by him to Wilson, telling what he had done in the suit and containing a promise of further letters). Respondent, in reply to counsel, stated that it was after those letters had been written that the greater part of the costs were incurred.

A bailiff was examined, who deposed that he served the appellant with the bill of costs, and that on presenting him with it he (witness) read over some of the items together with the gross amount to Wilson and that the latter then remarked that he thought 5£ or 6£. should satisfy Mr. Armstrong's claim in addition to £2. which he (Mr. A.) held of his.

Dr. CLARKE of Bailieborough was examined for the appellant. He stated that the Hassards were in the habit of harassing their tenants with vexatious legal proceedings, and that in January, '49 they caused a writ to be served upon Mr. WILSON, when the latter came to him (witness) and requested he would accompany him to the appellant to engage his professional services. Witness declined going without another person, accordingly they brought appellant's son as an additional witness. As seeing Mr. Armstrong in his office, he (witness) gave him 1£. to enter an appearance for Wilson, remarking at the time that it was not likely the Hassards would go farther with the suit, but that Mr. Armstrong was to inform appellant before incurring any further expenses on his account. To this Mr. Armstrong distinctly agreed. Witness heard no more of the affair until appellant came with the bill of costs to him, when he waited on Mr. Armstrong and reminded him of the agreement ; Mr. A. then said that Wilson could stop the amount of his bill from the Hassards when paying them his rent, but Mr. Wilson refused to do so.

Mr. Wilson was next examined, and he corroborated Dr. Clarke's testimony. With reference to the 2£ in dispute, he said that in paying the Deputy Clerk of the Peace some money in the Bailieborough court-house he gave him a 3£ note ; the latter took his demand out of it and was handing the balance, 1£. 18s. 4 1/2 d. to him (appellant), when Mr. Armstrong, who was next the clerk, "grabbed" the money (laughter), and kept it ever since (roars of laughter).

Appellant's son deposed to the facts stated by his father and Dr. Clarke.

The jury was unanimous in favour of the appellant Stephen Finn, appel., Pat Soraghan respondent.

The respondent, on being sworn, stated, that one morning in last May, being in Arva, he went into appellant's shop and asked for change of three 1£ notes ; appellant's wife was behind the counter and gave him the change ; shortly after he (witness) left Arva, on his way to Frenchpark fair it occurred to him that he might have made a mistake as he had notes to the amount of 40£ with him ; he did not, however, then examine the notes but waiting until he got into his lodgings in Carrick on Shannon when he counted his money in the presence of another person, and discovered that he had given a 10£ note in place of a 1£ note to Mrs. FINN.

Cross-examined -- He never opened the money from the left Arva until he arrived in Carrick; the note was a black Belfast one ; it was the only 10£. note he had but he had some 2£. ones ; can read print; did not look at the notes when giving them to Mrs. Finn, but is positive the 10£ one was amongst them. On his return from Frenchpark, applied to Mrs. Finn for the 9£ balance, but she denied having received the 10£. note. The appellant, Mr. Finn, is a respectable man.

Patt PRUNTY stated he was present in Carrick when SORAGHAN examined the money and said he had given Mrs. Finn 10£ in mistake for 1£. ; travelled from Arva on the car with Soraghan ; did not see a 10£ note with him in the morning, or at all that day.

Mrs. Finn was about being produced on behalf of her husband, the appellant, when his lordship stated she could not be examined in the case on behalf of her husband. Appellant's attorney stated she had been examined before the assistant-barrister for this county. On being told, he remarked she ought not to have been examined in the case at all and sent her of the table.

Stephen FINN sworn -- Was at the fair of Scrabby the morning Soraghan got the change in his shop. On his return home he examined the money his wife had and what was in the till ; found 9£ and some silver in all ; had left 6£ with his wife when going to the fair ; is positive there was no 10£ note amongst what his wife had.

The Chief Justice summed up the evidence observing that Soraghan had not proved that he had a 10£ note in his possession on the day alluded to -- at least no one saw it with him ; and it seemed strange that a man who had notes of various amounts mixed together would not look at them before paying them away.

The triers, contrary to the opinion of his lordship, found in favour of Soraghan.

The decree was then affirmed, and the triers of jury discharged.

James Berry, appel. Patrick Lee, respn.

This was against a decree obtained in the lower court for 8l. wages owed to Lee by appellant ..... brother, the late Thomas Berry, Esq., coroner.

Patt LEE examined -- Witness deposed that he had been employed by the late Mr. Thomas Berry at 11£ per day, and that he allowed his wages to run on until it amounted to 13£., 19s. 10d. ; that on the death of Mr. Thomas Berry, his brother, the appellant deposed of the effects ; that he (Lee) applied to Mr. James Berry for the wages owed to him and received in answer to his application the sum of 3£ which left a balance of 10£. 19s . 10d ; appellant said that ought to satisfy him, but he replied he would look for the remainder ; he (Lee), in order to avoid law, offered to take 8£. in lieu of what remained due, which, he supposed, is the reason why the Barrister gave him the decree for the 8£. only ; respondent cannot read or write ; he kept a wooden account (laughter), which he got transcribed.

James BERRY, Esq., appellant, on being examined, stated, that his brother, the late Thomas Berry, died intestate ; that he left very little property to meet his debts, and that he (appellant), at the request of the widow and children, had two auctions held of the effects of deceased ; that the money received at those sales was paid by him to the widow and creditors ; (account of the disbursements produced) ; that, in consequence of having had to do with the affair, he was obliged to pay some of the creditors a considerable sum of his own money that had no money or goods of the deceased to meet respondent's demand.

The Chief Justice affirmed the decree on the ground of appellant having "intermeddled" with the property of the deceased.

James Hamilton, Esq., J.P., Appel., Thomas Farrelly, Respondent.

This was an appeal against a decree confirming the respondent in possession of a small piece of bog on the property of appellant. It appeared by the evidence of a Mr. David FINLAY and of a bailiff formerly on the estate, that the respondent never paid rent for the bog, which was given to him free by Mr. SOUTHWELL a good many years ago when he was owner of the estate. The statute of limitations now intervened, FARRELLY having held the bog rent-free beyond the number of years requisite to give him a title in fee. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree in favour of Farrelly.

Wm. Bell, Esq., Sub-Sheriff, Appel., Rev. H. Connolly, Respondent. The case arose out of some transaction in which Mr. BELL was paid more than legal fees. The assistant-barrister granted a decree to respondent for the difference between the fees actually paid and which he ought to have paid. Mr. BELL appealed, but altered his mind before the case was called on. He affirmed the decree, and awarded Mr. CONNOLLY travelling expenses.

Clarke, Appel., Blacker, Resp.

This was a dispute about rent which accrued due to the landlord Mr. BLACKER, out of seven acres of bog held by the defendant at Ballynamoney. The case was unimportant. A decree had been obtained against Clarke for 27£. rent ; he sought relief, inasmuch as the bog was somewhat of a common on which the neighbours grazed their cattle.

His lordship confirmed the decree, reducing it, however, to 23£. Andrew Galligan, appel.; Susan Berry of Macken, Michael Byrne of New York, and Edward Plunket of Dunowen, Esq.., respondents.

For appellant -- Mr. PEEBLES, with Mr. TULLY, Attorney.
For defendant -- Mr. JOHNSTON, with Mr. KNIPE, attorney.

The appellant, who is a shopkeeper in Kilnaleck in this county, was decreed at the last Quarter Sessions of Cavan, for the sum of 5£,5s. for the use and occupation of a house and premises in the town of Kilnaleck, held and occupied by him from and under the respondents as trustees.

On the case being entered into a conversation arose between counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. PEEBLES was of opinion that this was a trial on title ; Mr. JOHNSTON thought quite the contrary.

Edward PLUNKETT, Esq., Donowen examined -- He knew Andrew GALLIGAN to be in possession of the holding for eight or ten years ; the take was overheld by Galligan but not under the will made by the late John George LENAUZE, to which will the present respondents were trustees ; was not aware of the existence of a marriage settlement ; he (witness) was formerly receiver over the lands under the Court of Chancery ; was not receiver now, but could not tell whether he had been discharged by the court from office. As it was necessary to ascertain if Mr. PLUNKET(sic) had been formally discharged from the office of receiver, his lordship adjourned the further hearing of the case until the next day. On the case being resumed on the following day, it was proved that the late John George LENAUZE, at his marriage, made a settlement devising his property to the issue of his then marriage, if there would be any, and making his wife trustee for the benefit of the children in case of his demise, also securing to the wife certain rights in the property. There was issue the daughter by the marriage, who died a minor. Mr. LENAUZE also died some years ago, but before his decease he made the will under which respondents claim to act as trustees. In some time after, the widow married a Mr. MALONE, and it was under Mr. and Mrs. MALONE GALLIGAN claimed to hold, Mrs. MALONE having become administratrix to her late husband, Mr. LENAUZE.

The Chief Justice observed that no will could annul the provisions of a marriage settlement. After a lengthened discussion between counsel on both sides, the court conceived that Mrs. Elizabeth MALONE having taken an administration to John George LENAUZE (her first husband) and also to the minor, that the respondents therefore could not recover without the consent of the administratrix, and reversed the decree. The learned judge condemned the proceedings against Galligan, and further remarked that landlords should settle their disputes without harrassing their tenants.

This was the last of the appeals. The court next proceeded to try the records.

John Patterson v. Samuel Martin.

The following gentlemen were sworn on the jury in this case: Alexander CLEMENGER, T. PRINGLE, Francis M'CABE, David KELLETT, Wm. Moore BLACK, Anthony KILROY, David GRIFFITH, Wm. FARIS, Richard O'REILLY, John BEATTY, Alexander KETTYLE(sic), and Thos. PHILLIPS, Esqrs.

Mr. John RICHARDSON opened the pleadings. This was action on the case brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of 162£. from the defendant, which the former paid for the latter as receiver under the Court of Exchequer, in the year 1852, although an ......... contract existed between them that the defendant would indemnify and bear the plaintiff harmless. Damages were laid at 100£., to which the defendant pleaded the general issue and non-assumpsit.

Mr. Robert JOHNSTON stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff is a respectable gentleman farmer, residing near Lisnaskea, in the county of Fermanagh, but formerly of Clinross, near Killeshandra, in the county of Cavan. The defendant, who is cousin-german of the plaintiff, resides at Tullyvin, near Cootehill, is a lieutenant on half-pay of the Cavan militia, one of the Cootehill Quarter Sessions grand jury, and an ex-poor law guardian. Dr. John MACFADEN, of Cootehill, one of the coroners for the county of Cavan, lent, in conjunction with Mr. JAMESON, the manger of the Cootehill branch of the Ulster Banking Company, a sum of 1,000£. to Mr. John GUMLEY, barrister-at-law, under a deed of annuity, and in the year 1846 Mr. Richard MONTGOMERY, late of Cootehill, and No. 9, North Great George's-street, Dublin, solicitor (now deceased), attorney for Dr. MACFADEN, took proceedings in the Court of Exchequer to recover the loan. The consequence of which was that a receiver was ordered to be appointed over Mr. GUMLEY's property under the Court of Chancery until the demands of the creditors would be discharged. The defendant, who was brother-in-law to Mr. MONTGOMERY, wished to become receiver, but found he count not, as a rule of court, expressly forbids the appointment as receiver of any relative of the solicitor in the cause ; he then applied to the plaintiff to allow his name to be put forward as receiver on the property, to which the latter at once consented on account of the friendship which then subsisted(sic) between them. The plaintiff was accordingly nominated receiver, and entered into the requisite recognizance before the court ; but further than that he had nothing to do with the property, the defendant being the actual receiver, collecting the rents, &c. He (counsel) would not justify this conduct, as it was to some extent reprehensible ; but referred to the matter in order that the jury might rightly understand the circumstances of the case. On this arrangement being made, the plaintiff went round the tenants and informed them that they were to pay their rents to Mr. MARTIN. From time to time he (plaintiff) gave defendant bundles of blank receipts with his name signed thereon to give the tenants when paying their rent. This system continued for several years, matters going on amicably until the year 1852, when the plaintiff, under threat of an attachment, was obliged to pay 162£. 6s. 10d. into court, in which sum the defendant had become a defaulter. The jury were to bear in mind that Mr. MARTIN was to receive all the fees and emoluments of the receivership for himself, and to be responsible to his client (Mr. PATTERSON) for damage or loss, so that the latter should be in nor way interested in the matter further than being the nominal receiver to oblige his friend. The plaintiff was served with a notice by the court in January, 1852, to wind up his accounts in order to be discharged from the receivership. The property was partly in Cavan and partly in Louth, on the former portion the sum of 639£. 18s. 10d. was due the court, and on the latte 26£. 8s., making a total of 666£. 6s. 10d. Mr. MONTGOMERY, the receiver's attorney, having died, his son, Mr. Samuel MONTGOMERY, and Mr. LEECH entered into partnership and became the attorneys to the receiver. Subsequently Mr. LEECH became the sole attorney. The plaintiff on receiving the notice referred to, applied to Mr. LEECH, who informed him of the 666£. 6s. 10d. being owed to the court. Mr. LEECH, by plaintiff's directions, wrote immediately to the defendant for the sum named to pay it into court, when Mr. MARTIN, in reply, remitted him 504£ and stated that plaintiff owed him the remainder. This sum Mr. LEECH paid into court on the 16th of April to the credit of the cause, and shortly afterwards Mr. PATTERSON (the plaintiff) paid in the remaining 162£. 6s., 10d., to avoid worse consequences. It appears, gentlemen of the jury, that there were several bill transactions between the parties for the accommodation of each other prior to tide(?), on one of which my client is indebted in 41£. to the defendant ; this was give him credit for and claim the balance of 162£/ 6s. 10d. The defendant, I believe, alleges that my client owed him this latter sum on other bills -- a most false and fraudulent assertion as I will show you by-and-by -- but even supposing he did, was it fair or honest of the defendant to leave him in the dilemma in which he did ; -- to abandon him without notice, not caring whether he were sacrificed or not? and this, too, after his kindness in lending himself to procure him (defendant) employment. If my client owed this money on bills, as alleged, why did not the defendant sue him upon those bills ? But he did not do so, nor doe he venture to say that my client is not perfectly solvent. It would have been to the credit of Martin if he had settled this matter without allowing it into court. The correspondence between the parties is voluminous, gentlemen, and I propose handing it all in as evidence.

Mr. Leech, the attorney referred to, was examined. He deposed to the balance sheet, and the payment of the sums into court, as mentioned by counsel.

To Mr. MAJOR, Q.C. -- The cause of MACFADDIN v. Gumley was transferred to Mr. HAMILTON after the late Mr. MONTGOMERY's decease ; plaintiff verified the balance sheet on oath before the Remembraneer ; there is a standing order in Chancery that a relative of the solicitor cannot be receiver ; the defendant frequently sent up sums of money before the 50 1/2£. ; the Master was aware of the arrangement between PATTERSON and MARTIN.

Sine papers were here produced, amongst others the report of the Master in Chancery appointing the plaintiff to the receivership in August, 1846.

The plaintiff, John PATTERSON, was then sworn and examined by Mr. RICHARDSON. He stated his interviews with the defendant previous to being appointed receiver, and admitted that there was no written indemnity given or required by him from defendant, having confidence in his honour, but after he had been so appointed, the defendant volunteered, or it was implied by him that he would indemnify plaintiff. Defendant procured the sureties and paid all expenses. The recognizances were entered into on the 17th of August, 1846. The plaintiff then deposed to signing blank receipts for MARTIN and to ordering the tenants to pay their rents ; he added that the fact of defendant acting as receiver was brought before the Master in July, 1849, when it was argued by counsel ; the Master said it was reasonable for plaintiff to appoint a deputy-receiver, and that it was a common occurrence.

To the Court -- There was no charge made by the Master for default of tenants.

Mr. BROOKE, Q.C., (for the defense), handed to witness a number of letters written by him to the defendant at different times urgently requesting the loan of considerable sums of money. Plaintiff admitted these letters to be genuine ; he was then handed a bill of exchange for 120£, on which his name appeared as the acceptor. Plaintiff vehemently denounced this as a forgery, although acknowledging his name on it to have been written by him.

The plaintiff was called on by the court to explain how it was a forgery ? He said that being in Dublin with the defendant in Montgomery's office at the time he went up to enter into recognisance as receiver, he (defendant) requested him to write his name on a blank five shilling bill stamp, saying that it was probable that he would have occasion to raise money for some purpose or object of his own, and which he consented to do, and when writing his name on it, he (defendant) desired him to write it on the end or margin of it, so that in the event of his not requiring the money he could cut off the signature without spoiling the stamp, and that he never saw it since until that moment, nor heard of it until lately, after he had required defendant to pay the money into court, nor did he hear of it from himself but from Dr. MACFADDEN, when he went over to Cootehill about payment of the money.

Another bill was here handed to plaintiff, who said it was an honest one. It was a bill of his for 80£., which he got cashed in a Cootehill bank ; he reduced it at various times from 80£. to 41£; defendant then paid the 41£. and lifted the bill for him ; this was the sum of 41£. referred to by counsel which he (plaintiff) owed defendant.

His lordship asked for the two bills. On comparing them, he remarked that the 80£. one had been in the bank, but the other was not nor did it appear to have been in circulation at all. He then handed them to the jury, who returned them in a few minutes, a juror making some observations on their appearance.

Mr. MAJOR inquired what the juror had said.

Chief Justice -- The jury think the 120£. bill worth very little -- the acceptor's name is written on the wrong side of it.

On plaintiff's cross-examination by Mr. BROOKE, he admitted that he verified the receiver's account, although it was the defendant that received the rents and pocketted(sic) the fees. He did so because he ha confidence in defendant. And having been asked why he signed the black stamp and never inquired from defendant about it afterwards, he replied, "Because I was a fool." He then identified a letter in which he solicited defendant to procure a bill to be discounted for him by the doctor (Dr. MACFADEN(sic)), or that other person Bailieborough, Dr. TAYLOR, he believed, for 100£. to pay to Mr. DOBBIN, or he would lose the agency ; did not lose it although he did not get money through defendant, because he made it up from other resources ; could not tell how he made up that sum, nor who he got it from ; had no recollection whatever of how he got out of the difficulty. He (plaintiff) did not get from defendant the 130£. he asked of him to purchase heifers, as his grass or hay was going to waste. Defendant could not lend the money to him himself, as he was also in distressed circumstances, in proof of which a letter of defendant's was produced in which he again requested the accommodation of plaintiff's name to raise money upon it in the Clones bank, and, to induce him to comply with his request, he stated in it that he would give a portion of the money to the plaintiff, and in that letter he never mentioned that plaintiff was indebted to him in a sum of 120£., or any sum save the amount of the 41£. bill.

The plaintiff's case having closed,

Mr. MAJOR, Q.C., said he conceived that the court should non-suit the plaintiff, as he, conjointly with the defendant and their former solicitor, Mr. Richard MONTGOMERY, were guilty of a fraud upon the Court of Exchequer, in evading by subterfuge one of its most salutary rules, the prohibiting the relative of an attorney in a cause being appointed a receiver.

The Chief Justice refused to non-suit, but said he would suggest to the jury (if Mr. MAJOR concurred) to return a verdict for the plaintiff and then defendant could bring his case before the Court of Error which would have the power reserved of reversing the verdict.

Mr. MAJOR declined the learned judge's offer and proceeded with his address to the jury, referring with great minuteness to the different points at issue -- to the admitted pecuniary difficulties of the plaintiff, who, he said, would never have paid defendant if he did not stop the 162£. odd from him when closing the accounts for the receivership. The learned counsel read several letters (most of them without date save the day of the week) from plaintiff to defendant beseeching the loan of money, and concluded a very able address by calling upon the jury not to give credence to the evidence of a person like the plaintiff, who swore to and verified accounts of the details of which he knew nothing, except through the defendant.

The defendant, Mr. MARTIN, was then sworn and examined. In reply to the questions put to him by counsel and the court he stated that he was charged with and had to pay 170£. which he did not receive ' this was partly on account of the defalcation of tenants and partly because certain proposals for the farms had been neglected by the then attorney in the cause, Mr. MONTGOMERY, with whom he had lodged them for a year and a half. He (defendant) frequently lent plaintiff money, on one occasion 200£., but never received the loan of any from him in return. He did not negotiate the 120£. bill now in court, because he did not require to do so ; he presented it to Dr. MACFADEN(sic) to be cashed, but the Doctor declined unless another name were got on the bill as he had heard PATTERSON was much involved in the banks ; got another name on the bill but did not again offer it to Dr. MACFADEN or any one else ; threw it in his desk, and got a bill of his own negotiated. The defendant further swore that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the amount of the two bills for 120£. and 41£. which, with the interest due upon them, made up more than the 162£, 6s. 10d. which the plaintiff had paid for him into court ; and having been asked by the court to explain how he paid the plaintiff the 120£. for which he held his bill, he swore that he gave him 100£. in the town of Cootehill, and took his I O U for that sum, which he holds in hand;; it is dated 25th April, 1850 ; he afterwards gave plaintiff 20£. more, and took his bill for the 120£. -- (Defendant then produced the I O U. It was on a small bit of paper, and the date was in the handwriting of defendant, in black ink. The name "John Patterson: was in pale ink.)

To the Court -- the I O U and the bill refer to the one transaction ; on the 2nd of April, 1850, I paid plaintiff 100£. and obtained this I O U from him ; on the 1st of Nov..following, I paid him 20£. more, when he gave me this bill of exchange for the 120£ ; he did not ask me for the I O U then or since ; I would have returned him the I O U but I hadn't it with me at the time.

The plaintiff was recalled and the I O U shown to him, whereupon he again swore most solemnly that that was a forgery also, as he never either heard of or saw it before ; but the signature, "John Patterson" was in his handwriting ; and the only way he could explain it was, that the bottom of a letter or note of his was cut off by the defendant, with his name on it, and the defendant then wrote the I O U above it.

Dr. MACFADEN was examined. In reply to an interrogatory from the bench he said that he had heard from Mr. MARTIN that he had those documents, one of which (the 120£. bill) he saw before.

The Chief Justice having examined the I O U, stated that it was certainly a very suspicious document.

Mr. BROOKE explained that two different kinds of ink -- one darker than the other -- might be obtained from the same ink bottle, and that the writing by or from a steel pen would be lighter in colour than that from a quill pen.


The case was resumed this morning at ten o'clock, by Mr. JOHNSTON reading some twenty to thirty letters from defendant to plaintiff (many of them apparently irrelevant). After which

Mr. BROOKE, Q.C., (having obtained leave from the court) addressed the jury for the defendant in a terse and vigorous speech.

Mr. RICHARDSON replied and said, that either the plaintiff or defendant was a rouge(sic), as more rank or abominable perjury he never heard before perpetrated in a court of justice, and either the plaintiff or defendant had committed it. It was the province of the jury by their verdict to say which of them had committed it, and it was probably their verdict would lead to ulterior proceedings in another court. He then called their attention to the manner the signature was attached to the two documents, the bill of exchange for 120£., and the I O U for 100£., but more particularly to the latter as it appeared strange that defendant had written the body of it, although plaintiff could write much better hand, and paper must be very scarce in the county of Cavan, when so important a document was written on so small a bit ; and further it also appeared odd that it was so nicely cut, evidently with a pair of scissors, and that the upper parts of some of the letters of Mr. Patterson's (the plaintiff's) name should go over the body of the I.O.U. The different coloured ink too was remarkable, as well as where the date was written. His lordship then charged the jury at great length pounding out the suspicious appearance of the I.O.U. and of the 120£. bill. (We regret we cannot make room for his lordship's admirable address).

The jury having retired for some time, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff for 120£., and sixpence costs.

The Chief Justice then called Mr. Samuel SWAZY ; the Clerk of the Crown, and handed the the (sic) 120£. bill and I O U for 100 , together with four letters which he himself selected to be impounded and kept by him until after the next assizes for the county, for the purpose of enabling Mr. John PATERSON, the plaintiff, to prosecute the defendant, Mr. Samuel MARTIN, for perjury.

Livingston v. Theo. Thompson, J.P.

This was an uninteresting record arising out of a dispute as to some half acre of bog in the neighbourhood of Redhills. It seems the plaintiff's property, called Killafanny, is on sale in the Incumbered Estates Court, and the Commissioners, previous to disposing of it, ordered an issue to be tried at this assizes to ascertain if the half acre of bog already referred to belonged to the plaintiff or to the defendant, Theo. THOMPSON, Esq., J.P., who owns the neighbouring property, called Leggakelly.

The Court directed three gentlemen to go and view the place in dispute. They did so, and on their return the jury was sworn and the case tried. A host of witnesses were examined on both sides. It appeared by their evidence, which was conflicting in many particulars, that a patch of bog separates Killafanny from Leggakelly, and that through this bog a dirty little stream manages to find its way to an adjoining lake. The plaintiff contended that this rivulet should be taken as the mearing between Killafanny and Leggakelly, while the defendant, on the other hand, stoutly asserted, that although the rivulet was the boundary line for some distance yet that it had been diverted at some time not named from its original course into its present bed, and by this means the disputed angle of bog was cut off the Leggakelly side and added to Killafanny. A gullet was spoken of as the former bed of the stream which debouched somewhere or other in the vicinity of a solitary tree that stands up as a sentinel in the solitary waste.

After a patient hearing of the case and a lucid charge from the judge, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

The spring assizes then terminated.



In the matter of the
ESTATE of EDWARD HUDSON, Trustee in Will of Rev. WILLIAM GRATTAN, Owner;
Rev. GIBSON BLACK, Administrator de bonis non of L. S. HERBERT, deceased, Petitioner,

Take Notice, that the Commissioners have Sold the Lands of Sylvan Park, Beresfort, Seymourstown, and part of Drumbaragh, situate in the Barony of Kells, and
and the lands of Tomkinroad and Clowney, situate in the Barony of Lower Loughtee, and
and the Draft Schedule of Incumbrances being lodged in the office of the General Clerk, if any person have a claim not therein inserted or any objection to said Schedule, or any lien on the purchase money, a statement, duly verified, of the particulars of such claim, objection, or lien, must be lodged by such persons in said office, on or before the 19th day of April next ; and on the following Monday, at 11 o'clock, A.M., Mr. LONGFIELD, LL.D., one of the Commissioners, will give directions for the final settlement of said Schedule. And you are to take Notice, that within the time aforesaid, any person may file an objection to any demand reported to you in the said Draft Schedule.

Dated the 19th day of February, 1853,
HENRY CAREY, (Seal) Secretary,
JOHN FARIS, Solicitor having carriage of Bale,
47m Lower Gardiner-street, Dublin.


To be LET on moderate-terms, for such period as many be agreed on, and immediate possession given,
possessing all the advantages requisite for respectable families.

For particulars apply to JOHN ROGERS, Esq., Belturbet.
Belturbet, March 2, 1853.


Price 2s 6d., or by post 3s.


  1. The Crown Matrimonial of France.
  2. Lectures at Mechanics' Institute. Lord Carliale - Lord Belfast.
  3. Sonnets. Down -- Death.
  4. Our Portrait Gallery - No. LXIX. The Right Hon. Joseph Napier, LL.D, Q.C., M.P. for the University of Dublin.
  5. The Indian Archipelago.
  6. Spring-Time Flowers.
  7. To the Bay of Dublin. By Denis Florence M'Carthy.
  8. Sir Jasper Carew, Knight. Chapters XVI., XVII.
  9. More Improvements in the Text of Shakespeare.
  10. Tom Cluggin's Two Antipathies.
  11. Burke's Fame and Cobden's Folly.

Dublin: JAMES McGLASHAN, 50, Upper Sackville-street, Wm. S. Orr and Co, 2. Amen-corner, London, and Liverpool, JOHN MENZIES, Edinburgh.


SUGARS, TEAS, WINES, WHISKEYS (in the Custom House Stores or duty paid), Guinness' XX Porter, Bass and Co's Bitter, Drogheda, and Alloa Ales in Bottle, all of the best qualities that can be procured supplied by
AT WHOLESALE PRICES, whereby a large saving is effected on the usual prices charged. Samples and full information on application, personally, or by letter to
Orders must be accompanied with a remittance.

INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT. In the matter of the Estate of Mary Anne Delap, Owner;
Edward King Tenison and Joseph Bennett Little, Petitioners.

All parties interested are requested to take Notice that the Commissioners have sold the Lands of Albeagh, Aleagh, otherwise Ravenswood, Annegeliffe, Conlara North, Drumcoghill, Drumgoone, Drumhalla, Drumick, Drumkeen, Drumlark, Drumullagh, Kilcrone, and Swellan, situate in the Baronies of Tullygarvey, Tullyhunco, and Loughtee,
and that the Draft Schedule of Incumbrances is now lodged in the Office of the General Clerk of this Court ; and if any person have a claim not therein inserted and admitted, or any objection to said schedule, either on account of the amount or priority of any claim therein mentioned as due to him or any other person, or because he claims any lien on the purchase money, or otherwise, and particularly if any person have a claim on foot of the several Deeds, Recognizances, and Bonus mentioned in the schedule hereto (on foot of which, respectively, nothing is admitted to be due), Notice is hereby given that a statement duly verified of the particulars of such claim, objection of lien must be lodged by such person with the General Clerk of said court, on or before the 12th day of April next, and on the following Tuesday, 19th April, 1853, at the hour of Two o'Clock, the Right Hon. Baron RICHARDS, Chief Commissioner, will give directions for the final settlement of said Schedule; and all parties interested are hereby further required to take notice, that within the time aforesaid any person may file an objection to any demand of any other person contained in said schedule.
Dated this 17th day of February, 1853.
HENRY CAREY, Secretary.
ROBERT JONES FOX, Solicitor for the Petitioner, having the carriage of the proceeding, No. 91, Stephen's-green, South.

Recognizance in the Exchequer, of 26th February, 1808, FOR £1,000, that ROBERT SAUNDERSON do account as Sheriff.

Bond of 18th July, 1814, in 1500£., that WILLIAM ERSKINE, as Treasurer of the County of Cavan, do account.

Chancery Recognizance of 30th November, 1816, for 2,119£., that JOSEPH STORY do account as Committee.

Deed of Trust for payment of the following creditors of ROBERT SAUNDERSON, dated 7th January, 1820, and appointing JOSEPH MAGUIRE a Trustee for that purpose, viz., Miss SAUNDERSON, for the sum of 2,800£.; WILLIAM ERSKINE, for 2,300£.; WILLIAM WALLACE, for 400£.; WILLIAM ROGERS, for 300£. HUMPHRY TILSON, for 100£.; Miss LYONS, for 217£. 13S. 3D.; HUGH RORKE for 300£; GURLY CAMPBELL for 150£.; THOMAS NESBITT, for 599£. 8s.; JOHN THICKPENNY, for 100£.; JAMES STORY, for 496£.; DENIS MAGUIRE, for 100£.; ROBERT FITZGERALD, for 50£.; FRANCIS CLINTON, for 90£.; TERENCE BRADY, for 100£.; Messrs. SNEYD, French, and Co., for 147£.; Mrs. SAUNDERSON, FOR 350£.; Miss BURROWES, for 60£.; ELIZABETH O'NEILL, otherwise BRADY, for 68£. 1s.; MICHAEL DALY, for 28£ 19s. 16d; Mrs. BRICE, for 100£.; Mrs. SAUNDERSON, for 200£; Mr. WILLIAM ERSKINE, for 325£.; JOSEPH MAGUIRE, for 1,612£. 2s. 6d.

OLDCASTLE UNION. On Friday, the 11th instant, the Guardians will receive Tenders for supplying the Workhouse with the following Articles, for the periods stated, vis.: --


Newmilk and Buttermilk, per gallon.
Medicine and Medical Appliances for the Workhouse and several Dispensaries.
Keeping in Repair the Pumps, Locks, Keys, and the necessary Smith's Work.


Beef and Mutton per lb. (without Bone),
Turf, per guage(sic).
Straw, per cwt.
Lime per barrel.
Glazing the Windows of the Workhouse.

Sealed Tenders, accompanied by Samples, will be received by me up to 11 o'clock on the above named day, 11th March, 1853.
(By Order),
JAMES JOHNSTON, Clerk of Union
Dated 1st March, 1853.
Note.-- The Names of Parties must not appear on Samples.

The Board of Guardians of the above Union will, on Friday the 18th of March next, receive Tenders for supplying the Workhouse with the following Articles, from the 25th March to the 29th September, 1583, vis.: --

White Bread, per lb. Brown Bread, per lb.
Beef (best quality,)
Oatmeal, per cwt.
Indianmeal (white and yellow.) per cwt.
Patna Rice, per cwt.

And also for Sweeping the Chimneys of the Workhouse and Fever Hospital, at all times that may be necessary, for one year to 25th March, 1854.

The above articles to be delivered at the Workhouse, free of expense, at such times and in such quantities as may be ordered by the Guardians. Samples to accompany Tenders. Sealed Tenders endorsed "Tender for ---" (as the case may be), stating the names of Two Solvent Sureties willing to join in a Bond for the due fulfillment of the Contract, addressed to the Chairman, will be received by me, or may be deposited in the Tinder Box, up to Twelve o'clock on FRIDAY, the 18th March next, when the Contracts will be declared.
(By Order)
ROBERT GRAHAM, Clerk of the Union.
Board Room, February, 26th, 1853.

March 10, 1853


On the 5th, at Lower Gloucester-street, Mrs. James H. OWEN, of a son. On the 4th inst., at Mountpleasant-place, the wife of Mr. William ROBERTSON, of a daughter.


On the 3rd inst., in St. Peter's church, by the Rev. the Dean of Cashel, uncle to the bride, the Rev. Stephen RADCLIFFE, son of John Radcliffe, Esq., of Willmount, county of Meath, to Anne Jane, daughter of Charles James ADAMS, Esq., of Shinan House, county of Cavan.


March 2d., in Galway, after a short illness, in his 16th year, Samuel DALES, youngest son of the late Major Archibald ROBERSTON, a youth of great talents and promise. He was universally beloved ; and his loss will be long and deeply felt by his sorrowing family.

On the 3rd inst, at Blackrock, Harriet Matilda, wife of Mr. Michael PATTON.

The Rev. Philip O'REILLY, parish priest of Bailieborough, county Cavan, died on the ult. He discharged the duties of administrator of that parish for forty one years. In his demise the church has experienced a severe loss, the poor have been deprived of a father, the pious of a great example, and the afflicted of an untiring comforter. May he rest in peace.

On the 3rd of March, at his residence, Gardenfield, in the county Galway, James KIRWAN, Esq., J.P.

FATAL ACCIDENT. -- On Thursday last, as Andrew LONDRIGAN, groom to R. W. MORRIS, Esq., was exercising a horse in the neighbourhood of Mile-post village, he cam in contact with a tree, was thrown from the horse, and melancholy to relate, was killed on the spot. -- Waterford Mail.

March 17, 1853

EMIGRATION. -- The rush at present of emigrants from all parts of this county is really astounding. Every day the coaches are loaded with persons fleeing from the land of their nativity, as if it were a doomed spot. Three coaches leave Cavan daily for Dublin, and they are insufficient to meet the demands for seats. The great majority of the emigrants direct their course to the United States, some few to British America, and others who have means to defray the heavy charge for passage go to Australia.

RATHER STRANGE. -- On Monday night the good people of Cavan town were surprised by an unusual commotion amongst the feathered tribe. About nine o'clock on that night a vast number of birds collected and kept hovering over and around the town for several house, wailing in most doleful fashion. We don't recollect having ever heard the like before. Soon after one o'clock in the morning the crying ceased and the birds dispersed. The occurrence has furnished the local omen-mongers with something to gossip about.

THE WEATHER. -- For the past week the weather has been severe and most unfavourable for farming operations. We have had rain, hail, and snow in turns. The low lands are flooded and the ground is unfit for tillage. The spring-work is very backward in this district ; in fact, it has barely been commenced. The people are preparing to plant the potato and flax extensively. The latter paid the farmer remarkably well last year. It is to be feared -- nay, it is almost certain that when the dry weather sets in there will be a great dearth of labourers felt. Last autumn the farmers in many places sustained considerable loss for want of hands to reap the crops ; and this season it will be much worse, for emigration has increased rather than otherwise. When will the "upper" classes learn that in losing the labouring population they lose a main element in their own prosperity?


March 9, at Kingstown, Mrs. Edward HAYES, of a son.

March 7, Bellegrove, Clontarf, the lady of Alderman GREESHAM, of a daughter.


March 3, at Bailieborough, county Cavan, Richard MORGAN, Esq., son of Captain Morgan, of that town, to Jane, sister of the Rev. Wm. BURNS, of Wexford.

On the 10th inst., in Croghan Presbyterian Church, by the Rev. Wm. SWEENY, A.M., William DOUGLAS, Esq., Freemount(?), Cootehill, to Elise, eldest daughter of the late Chas. MAGEE, Esq., Tully House, Killeshandra.

March 10, in St. Peter's Church, by the Venerable the Archdeacon of Clogher, the Rev. C. SOUTHWELL, to Elizabeth, daughter of the late W. B. FITZGERALD, Esq., of Dublin.

Melbourne, 23rd November: -- "The Wesleyan Society here have been going nobly to the cause of religion. They have build and paid for an emigrant house, where Wesleyan families may go and reside for ten days or so after their arrival, to enable them to look for accommodation. They have also collected during the last week, between subscriptions and collections, upwards of three thousand pounds in Melbourne alone, for increased chapel accommodation in this colony. An order has been sent home for six iron chapels to supply the demand. Within the last six months all the debts of five chapels, large and small, have been cleared off. There is, therefore, no lack of money for the cause of religion. Eight new ministers are expected out as also a deputation from the English conference. All the churches here are sending for additional aid. The Church of England is getting up a fund to enable them to get ten additional ministers ; and I need not say that the Roman Catholics are working might and main too. I question though with all these movements if true and vital godliness is on the increase. Mammon, I fear, has her thousands of worshippers ; and many who, when they possessed a competence, were devoted servants of God, have, I fear, when wealth has poured upon them as a flood, forgotten their increased obligation to love and serve God as before. It is cheering, however, to see all the Christian churches bestirring themselves in order to stem the tide of evil which pours into this favoured land. I trust the good will soon preponderate. We expect the John Bunyan in a few days, when I hope to go out and meet her in the Bay."

March 24, 1853



DEAR SIR -- From time immemorial the abominable practice of cock-fighting has prevailed to a great extent in this neighbourhood ; and as Easter Monday is the day, above all others, chiefly set apart for this cruel and degrading amusement, I thought it might be useful to some of your readers were I to mention an anecdote connected with this abominable practice, which is probably not generally known.

I do not mean to draw distinction between vices, and condemn cock fighting, whilst I would overlook horse-racing or any other description of gambling, attended as they all are by the development of every evil passion ; but the taste for cock fighting prevails to a great degree in this neighbourhood, and is attended with great cruelty. I trust the following anecdote may be the means, under God, of inducing many to give up a practice so much at variance with every rational and manly feeling.

In the Gentleman's Magazine for 789(sic), the following record will be found -- "Died, April 4th, at Tottenham, John Ardesoif, Esq., a young man of large fortune, who was rivalled(sic) by few country gentlemen in the splendour of his carriages and horses ' his table was that of hospitality, where it may be said he sacrificed too much to conviviality ; but, if he had his foibles, he had his merits also, that few outweighed."

"Mr. Ardesoif was very fond of cock-fighting, and possessed a favourite cock on which he had won many profitable matches. The lat bet he made on this cock he lost, which so enraged him that he had the bird tied to a spit and roasted alive before a large fire. The screams of the miserable animal were so affecting that some gentlemen who were present attempted to interpose, which so increased Mr. Ardesoif's anger that he seized a poker, and with the most furious vehemence declared that he would kill the first man who interfered ; but in the midst of his passionate asseverations he fell down dead upon the spot. Such we are assured were the circumstances which attended the death of this great pillar of humanity."

Yours truly,
Cavan, March 21st, 1853.

March 31, 1853

On Tuesday, the 22nd March, inst., at Ford Lodge, adjoining the town of Cavan, Mrs. VERNON, wife of John Edward Vernon, Esq., J.P., departed this life for a happier and a better. It is difficult for the journalist, who daily mingles in the struggles of life, to disengage himself from the toils of his laborious office in order to pay that tribute which is meet and due over the bier of departed worth. Upon this occasion we feel a more than ordinary inadequacy to discharge the melancholy duty which devolves upon us. The deceased was the fifth daughter of the amiable, honoured, and venerable Bishop of this diocese, Dr. LESLIE. Her husband, Mr. VERNON, is a man for whom we have the most sincere regard. As a landlord, as an agent, and as a private gentleman, he has few, very few peers, and, we believe, no superiors. Alike loved by the rich and the poor, he stands out, without ostentation, the honoured and beloved benefactor of his country and of his kind. Here is not the pl! ace to state what we think and know of Mr. VERNON's worth ; but we hope to be excused for stating that never did we sympathise more earnestly, if we be so permitted, with any human being than we do on this occasion with an aged father, loving sisters and brother, a fond and bereaved husband and young children. This feeling, however vaguely expressed by us, is sympathised in by all classes in Cavan. From the first announcement of Mrs. VERNON's decease, all the shops of Cavan were partially closed and a general feeling of sorrow prevailed the towns people. On Friday night last, at 8 o'clock, the earthly remains of Mrs. VERNON were borne from Ford Lodge to the Episcopal Palace, Kilmore, where they remained until Saturday morning when they were interred in the family vault with the strictest privacy. The neighbours and dependents of the deceased lady were very desirous of an opportunity of testifying their opinion of her value ; and they regret much that, under the circumsta! nces, the presentation of this opportunity was unadvisable.

On the 19th of March, 1853, the soul of James O'REILLY, Esq., Baltrasna, Co. Meath, was dissevered from its earthly tenement. The deceased had arrived at the good round age of 78. It is not for us, strangers as we are, comparatively, in this county, to speak of the old patriarchs of Brefni ; but we may be held blameless for stating that the memory of Mr. O'REILLY is cherished with love and gratitude by the residuum of his many dependents. Frequently has his name been lisped to us in praise, and we sympathise with the old veterans on a time and world-renowned property. Never having known the deceased, but simply gathering the echoes of his lineage, fame, and worth, as they were borne to our ears through the stream of history, of local report, and of our own recollections, we regret that we have to lament the loss of another worthy Irishman.


On Tuesday the 29th inst., in Cappa Church, by the Rev. James BYRNE, Ex F.T.C.D., Frederick GAHAN, Esq., late 57th Regt., youngest son of Beresford GAHAN, Esq., formerly of the 5th Dragoon Guards, and Brigade Major of yeomanry, to Henrietta, eldest daughter of the late James BYRNE, Esq., Carlow.


On the 27th inst, at Bessbrook, in this county, Mr. Robert POGUE, in the 33rd year of his age, much regretted by a large circle of friends.

Three sessions commenced in Cootehill on Monday last before P. M. MURPHY, Esq., Q.C., Assistant Barrister for the county of Cavan, John VERRES, Esq., of Bailieborough, R.M., Michael PHILLIPS, Esq., Glenview, Belturbet ; Samuel Rutherford MOOREHEAD(?), Esq., Fortwilliam, Cootehill ; and Edward M'INTOSH(?) Esq., Cootehill.

The business to be transacted at these sessions was unprecedentedly light, there being only 173 civil bill processes, 12 ejectments, 2 legacy cases, 1 replevin, 5 applications for spirit licenses, and 9 crown numbers !

Shortly after the sitting of the court, at ten o'clock, a.m., the following persons were sworn on the grand jury, vis., -- Messrs. Patrick HORAN (foreman), R..... BROWNE, John CAMPBELL, John SHERA, W(illiam?) MAXWELL, Edward COONEY, Samuel FISHER, Thomas FAY, Philip SMITH, Joseph ADAMS, Edward S(harp?)(Slorp?), John JOHNSTON, John RUSK, Wm. MAHOOD, Edward MAHOOD, Adam DEAN, and George PORTER.

His worship (the Assistant-Barrister) then addressed them to the following effect: -- Gentlemen of the grand jury, I am happy to be able to inform you that your duty on this occasion will not be very onerous, as there are only nine numbers on the crow book, and the cases are of a trivial nature, which speaks well for the peaceable state of this district. There will be a couple of indictments laid before you against parties for former convictions, which of course you will have no difficulty in disposing of ; and should you require any advice or assistance from me, I shall have much pleasure in affording it to you. And as soon as you shall have disposed of the bills, which the clerk of the peace will send up to you, you will be discharged from further attendance, and concluded by saying, gentlemen, you may now retire.

The spirit licenses were then entered upon, and all the applications for same were granted, save that of Hugh MARTIN of Cootehill, which was refused by the bench in consequence of his having been convicted and imprisoned for two years, for participating in the robbery of the cattle of Samuel HALL of See, in the autumn of the year 1850. There was only one appeal from magistrates' conviction entered, which fell to the ground in consequence of the informality in the proceedings.

The following petty jury was then sworn, vis.: -- Ambrose HARTLEY, James PRIOR, Michael BRADY, E GARDINER, Joseph M'FADEN, Hugh M'FADEN, Thomas SHARP, Owen COLLINS, and Bernard COLLINS, and the following trials proceeded with.

Ann GREEN and Patrick REILLY were arraigned upon an indictment which charged them with having, at Kingscourt, on the 19th February last, stolen three geese, the property of Catherine KERNAN of that town. They also stood indicted for having had said geese in their possession at same time and place, well knowing same to have been stolen. They were found guilty, and the male prisoner sentenced to be imprisoned for six, and the female for one month at hard labour.

Patrick CLEARKIN was indicted for having, at Cootehill, on the 11th March inst., (the fair day of the town), robbed Patrick SMITH of two purses containing 3£. 3s. 9d. in gold and silver. Not guilty.

Catherine BROGAN, a young but very prepossessing woman, pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged her with having stolen wearing apparel, the goods of Bridget FARRELLY, at Lisnahetherna, near Mullagh, on the night of the 1st March inst. To be imprisoned for two months and kept to hard labour. It appeared that a man of the name of James CARR, with whom she cohabited, was also at the robbery, but he succeeded in effecting his escape out of the Bridewell of Bailieborough.

William GERRAGHTY, a young lad of a most wretched appearance, his countenance being of a sepulcher hue, evidently from destitution and starvation, although only discharged from Cavan gaol at last assizes, also pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged him with having stolen some flax, the property of Messrs. KANE and Co., of Belfast, off (........) at Cootehill, on the night of Friday last. He was also arraigned and pleaded guilty to a second indictment for having been convicted of a larceny on a former occasion, and having received a very bad character from the deputy gaoler and sub constable, William SIMPSON, he was sentenced to be transported for ten years.

June KING, a young looking lad(SIC), was found guilty of stealing a loaf of bread and a piece of calico, in which it was tied, the property of Robert M'AD..... of Ashfield, in the house of Mr. James BAILEY,...... keeper, Cootehill, on the night of the 4th March inst., and that, too, whilst in custody on a charge of picking the pocket of said Robert ADAM of 2£. ?s., a few minutes previously, but the indictment for which was ignored by the grand jury ; and having been found guilty and imprisoned for six months for having robbed one Andrew MARTIN of 5£. in the year 1844, and having received a bad character from Mr. MOOREHEAD, the deputy gaoler, and said sub constable, William SIMPSON, she was also sentenced to be transported for ten years.

James WOODS, sen., James WOODS, jun., Wm. WOODS, Jane WOODS, and Elizabeth WOODS, the sons and daughters of James WOODS, sen., were tried upon an indictment which charged them with having, at Aughatoten, near Tullyvin, on the 1st March last, committed an assault upon and taken forcible possession of a farm of land, the property of George PORTER, ....kenny, on the 1st March inst. The male prisoners were found guilty, and the female acquitted. To be imprisoned for three months, each at hard labour, but the sentence was subsequently mitigated upon sequence of said James WOODS, sen., giving up possession of said farm to Mr. PORTER.

This terminated the crown business.

Michael WARD in replevin.
Plaintiff, Henry O'REILLY, Defendant.

On this trial being called, the Defendant's (Mr. O'REILLY's) attorney (Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG) submitted to the court that, under the circumstances of the case, it would be better to refer it for arbitration. The Plaintiff's son (Mr. John WARD) who appeared for plaintiff, applied to the court to have the trial proceeded with in the ordinary way ; whereupon the Barrister empannelled a jury of three gentlemen to try the case between the parties. The jury were -- Andrew NIXON, Esq., near Virginia, Charles PRATT, Esq., Barleyhill, and John KENNY, Esq., Redhills.

Benjamin ARMSTRONG, appeared for Mr. O'REILLY the defendant in replevin, and Messrs. Edward M'GAURAN and William MAHAFFY for Mr. WARD (the plaintiff).

Mr. O'REILLY sworn and examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG, stated that the plaintiff owed him 59£. 14s. rent, down to 1st Nov. 1852 for which he distrained plaintiff, who holds three farms under him in Kilnacrossduff.

On cross-examination by Mr. M'GAURAN, Mr. O'REILLY said he had too many dealings to his loss with plaintiff. He does not recollect when he gave a receipt for rent to plaintiff ; admitted a receipt, rather an acknowledgement, for payment of rent handed to him by Mr. M'GAURAN, bearing date 8th Dec., 1849. He subsequently admitted that all rent due to him by plaintiff were paid down to Nov., 1850.

Mr. M'GAURAN observed that he was glad to find that Mr. O'REILLY had not denied his signature now, as he did lately in the Court of Common Pleas, Dublin. Plaintiff endorsed bills frequently for him in the National Bank, Carrickmacross. He did defend an action in the Court of Common Pleas instituted against him by Mr. John FARRELLY of Cavan on a bill of exchange endorsed by John WARD, plaintiff .... He swore in the Court of Common Please on that occasion that his name had been forged to the bill of exchange in question by John WARD. He (Mr. O'REILLY) admitted that the judge and jury told him they did not believe one word he swore on the occasion, and that he was ordered off the table by the judge. The jury found a verdict against him. Mr. O'REILLY subsequently swore he did not hear the judge or jury tell him they did not believe what he swore. He admitted to have received only 20£. from plaintiff since Nov. 1850 which was paid to Dean ADAM.....(ADAMSON?) in lieu of rent for him by Mr. WARD.

Mr. John WARD sworn and examined by Mr. M'GAURAN -- Stated that he handed 40£. to Mr. O'REILLY on 25th February, 1851, to pay a bill in the National Bank, Carrickmacross, for 80£. which Mr. O'REILLY got discounted on his father's endorsement. Mr. WARD proved also that Mr. O'REILLY had received in cash and other value the sum of 237£. 4s.1d. through himself from the plaintiff in replevin since 1st Nov., 1850, out of which credit was given to Mr. O'REILLY for 191£., 3s. 6d.

Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG -- Your worship -- the starting point from which Mr. WARD's rent should be calculated is from the 1st November, 1850.

Barrister -- I conceive the starting point of your client, Mr. O'REILLY, should be for New South Wales (laughter).

After hearing the case at considerable length, the jury found that Mr. O'REILLY was indebted to Mr. WARD (the plaintiff in replevin), after paying all rent due to him down to Nov. 1852, in the sum of 23£. 0s. 3d. The jury awarded 5£. damages. The court decreed that the bond in replevin be cancelled and that Mr. O'REILLY be decreed for 5£. in conformity with the verdict of the jury, and the barrister observed that if the damages were to have been decimated by himself, he would have pronounced a decree for 10£.. Mr. WARD produced receipts for the payment of poor rates, amounting to about 20£., independent of the credits already referred to, for which the court refused to allow him credit on the action then before it.

County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project

Ireland Home Page
County Cavan

IMPORTANT NOTICE: All rights to the pages found within this site are retained by the original submitter of the information. Pages may be printed or copied for personal use only. They may NOT be reproduced in any form in whole or in part by any individual or organization for profit.