Published in Cavan, county Cavan
March 2, 1854


Magistrates present--Theophilus THOMPSON and Robert ERSKINE, Esqrs.

Mary FLYNN a. Robert STINSON

This was a charge for money due on account of work done on several collars for the defendant. She had worked a first, and was to get a certain price for the number of others, if they were equally well done, which plaintiff alleged she was allowed.

The defendant swore that he gave full value for all the work done; plaintiff had asked an arbitration and got it; he had offered her all they allowed.

Mr. Edward Lennox SLOANE, one of the arbitrators, proved to the award, and plaintiff admitted having taken the money awarded.

The case was, therefore, dismissed.

Mary REILLY a. Robert WILSON

This was also a charge for money due for sprigging. MR. John ARMSTRONG stated the case on behalf of the defendant. According to the statute, a case of dispute was to be referred to not less than four or more than six arbitrators, or to a magistrate; the former he would consider the preferable course, and magistrates--though quite competent to decide a point of law--were not quite so good judges of sprigging.

It was ordered that the matter be referred to two arbitrators, one appointed by each party.

Susan DALY a. Edward Lennox SLOANE

This was a similar case, and Mr. ARMSTRONG moved that there be a similar reference, but at Mr. SLOANE's suggestion to four not to two as in the preceding case, for the defendant could not, he said deviate from the strict letter of the Act. Ordered accordingly.

Patrick SWIFT a. George ROURKE

The plaintiff, who is a soldier of 18th Royal Irish, was sent on a billet to the defendant's house, where he was assaulted rather than received.

The sergeant produced the billet given to the plaintiff.

SWIFT sworn, proved to the assault.

Cross-examined by Mr. J. ARMSTRONG--Was quite sober; drank only a glass of whiskey that day; does not know what o'clock it was when he went to ROURKE's; went with his billet as soon as he got it to ROURKE's; was called a "blackguard and no soldier," and knocked out on the road.

Sergeant O'TOOLE proved to giving the billet to SWIFT. There was no delay in getting the billet after SWIFT returned. Witness went himself after SWIFT's return to ROURKE's and rapped, when Mr. ROURKE shouted out, "You blackguard go off or I'll cut off your head;" there was a woman in the house with defendant who said, "Don't cut off his head but shoot the blackguard."

To MR. ARMSTRONG--SWIFT was not drunk, but quite capable of doing his business.
MR. ARMSTRONG--Was he under the influence of liquor?
Witness--He was sober.

MR. ARMSTRONG pressed the question, but Mr. T. THOMPSON ruled that the answer was most satisfactory.

MR. ARMSTRONG dissented. The man might be under the influence of drink so as to be very troublesome, and yet be denominated a sober man. He then stated the case. ROURKE was putting on his shutters when plaintiff pressed and knocked the shutters out of his hand, never stating a word about a billet. The novelty of a soldier coming at eleven o'clock, and he drunk, was quite sufficient to justify ROURKE's not giving him admittance. As soon as ROURKE found that a policeman was outside he said, "Oh! he must get in of course." He (Mr. ARMSTRONG) would ask was there ever an instance of a soldier coming upon a billet at so late an hour, and if there was not how could ROURKE be other than chary of receiving a man, even though he affected to have a billet. He then alleged Mr. ROURKE's high character in Cavan. No such charge was ever made against him before. The magistrates knew him well, and he would leave him in their hands.

All the police in the court bore witness to the orderly character at all times of Mr. ROURKE's house.

MR. THOMPSON acquiesced in this, but stated at the same time that the case was a most aggravated case; he should have been admitted by generous man, even if he had no right to enter; but armed with full authority to obtain it, he was refused shelter, and assaulted; he would, therefore, fine the defendant in 40s. for the refusal to admit the soldier, and 10s. for assaulting him.

Edward L. SLOANE a. same;
Robert STINSON a. same

The defendant was charged with detaining goods given her to sprig. She had fourteen pieces from Mr. CARNDUFF, got at several times, under a variety of names, a number of others from Mr. SLOANE, and also from Mr. STINSON. The plaintiffs believed that she had absconded, having disposed of the goods.

A warrant was ordered to be issued for the apprehension of the girl.


Terence BRADY, publican, summoned Patrick M'GOWAN, for having a cart in such a way in the street, opposite to plaintiff's door, as to prevent access to it. Defendant also threatened plaintiff, by shaking his fist in his (plaintiff's) face, and saying he would kick him.


Feb. 21, at Kill Chapel, by the Rev. P. SMITH, P.P., Mr. Bernard M'CABE, of Cootehill, to Miss Catherine O'REILLY, daughter of the late MR. James OREILLY, of Campstown (one of the lineal descendants of the Princes of East Brefni), and sister of the Rev. Charles O'REILLY, C.C., Modubawn, Cootehill, in this county.

March 9, 1854

CATHOLIC CHURCH--The Rev. Peter M'GAURAN, P.P., of Kildallen, in this diocese has been removed to the parish of Drumlane, vacant by the death of the Rev. Phil. DONEGAN, and Rev. Hugh CASSIDY has been promoted to the parish of Kildallen, in the room of the Rev. Peter M'GAURAN. We have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. M'GAURAN, but we are sure that the Rev. Mr. CASSIDY will be highly estimated by those who are committed to his care. He has been for several years Curate in Ballinamore, and there his name is held by every one in benediction.

Mr. Edward FEGAN of Cavan, was appointed by the Grand Jury at the assizes just terminated, Appraiser and Auctioneer for the Pawn- broker of this county.


On the 28th ult., by the Rev. James BONWELL, Incumbent of St. Phillip's, Stepney, London, Mr. John WALLACE, HIgh-st, Belfast, to Mary Anne BOWKER, youngest daughter of the late John WORCHESTER, Esq., and niece to Charles RANDON, Esq., merchant, Church-street, Spitalsfields, London.


March 7, at Charlemont-street, Dublin, Jane, relict of the late Lieutenant James NIXON, Royal Navy.

On the 28th ult. at Killinure, near Redhills, in the 88th year of her age, Esther, relict of the late George BELL, Esq, Barrister-at-Law. In her the poor of her neighbourhood have lost an untiring benefactress. She was beloved in life, and the best consolation now of her mourning family in the recollection of the firm Christian faith that supported her in death.


In the Matter of ) PURSUANT to the order of the Commissioner
Thomas SMITH, ) made in this matter, on the 13th day of
assignee of ) November, 1850, they will on TUESDAY, 18th
Thomas WILTON ) April next, at the hour of 12 o'Clock at Noon,
an Insolvent ) at the Farnham Arms Hotel, Cavan, by Mr
 Owner; ) James SMYTH, Auctioneer, set up for Sale by
Exparte ) Public Auction, the Fee and Inheritance of and
Henry GALLIGAN ) in the following Lands, situate in the Barony of
 Petitioner ) Clonmahon, and County of Cavan; Part of the
    Lands of Corglass, containing 23 a., 1r. 29p.
statute measure, or thereabouts being 12 a. 9r. 9p plantation measure. Those Lands are now occupied by the late owner, Thomas WILTON or Persons claiming under him, whose tenancies will all determine by the execution of the conveyance to a Purchaser. These Lands were Valued for Sale in the year 1850, by order of the Commissioners, at £12 9s. 9d. yearly, in their then condition, but they are represented by the Engineer who reported upon them, as being susceptible of great Improvements, by Judicious Drainage, and Cultivation. The entire of the Lands are subject in common with other Lands, containing in the whole 140 a. 2r. profitable, and £67 1s. 8d. unprofitable measure of the Down Survey, to a Crown Rent of £2 2s. 8½d. late currency, the proportional part thereof being payable out of these Premises, is estimated at about 4s.
Dated, 4th March, 1854
J. LOCKE, Auction Clerk

Rentals and all further particulars may be obtained by applying at the Office of the Commissioners, 14, Henrietta-street, Dublin; or to Andrew Christopher PALLAS, Solicitor for Petitioner having carriage of Sale, Chambers 125, Abbey-street; and to

Samuel SWANZY, Esq., Solicitor, for Owner, 49, Bolton-street, Dublin and Cavan.

The charge upon these Lands, if there shall be any in reference to the Kiln Drainage, under the Board of Works, must be borne by the purchaser. The amount has not been ascertained, but it cannot be considerable. The biddings will be submitted to the Right Honorable the Chief Commissioner, on Tuesday, 25th April, without further notice to any person.


At a quarter to five o'clock, on Friday last, Mr. Justice TORRENS, attended by the High Sheriff, John Hervey ADAMS, Esq., came into court. The commission having been read by the Acting Clerk of the Crown, Mr. O'NEILL, the Grand Jury was called over, and the following gentlemen sworn:--

Robert BURROWES, Esq., Stradone House, foreman
Hon. Henry C. BUTLER, Quivey
William HUMPHRYS, Esq., Ballyconnell House
Lieut.-Colonel Henry CLEMENTS, Ashfield
Joseph STOREY, Esq., Bingfield
Theophilus L. CLEMENTS, Esq., Rakenny
J. HAMILTON, Esq., Castle Hamilton, Killeshandra
W. RATHBOURNE, Esq., Scruplestown, C. Dublin
Nathaniel MONTGOMERY, Esq., Swanlinbar
Robert J. CUMMING, Esq., Crover, Ballyjamesduff
John E. VERNON, Esq., Forde Lodge, Cavan
Perrott THORNTON, Esq., Ardloher
Robert Smyth DICKSON, Esq., Killeshandra
James FAY, Esq., Cavan
Michael PHILIPS, Esq., Glenview, Belturbet
George WARING, Esq., Bailieboro
Abraham BRUSH, Esq., Drumbar Cavan
John JOHNSTON, Esq., Swanlinbar
Charles MORTIMER, Esq., Lakeview, Mullagh
Joseph LYNCH, Esq., Roebuck
Edward M'INTOSH, Esq., Cootehill
Robert ERSKINE, Esq., Cavan

His Lordship proceeded to address them. He said -- MR. BURROWES and gentlemen of the grand jury of the County of Cavan--With respect to the cases which appear on the calendar, I have little to say; they are unimportant and few, and, as to them you understanding matters so well yourselves, require no instructions from me to guide. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the cases of those not in custody....One of them is a case of rescue, a second is a case of homicide, and a third is for rape.....

RECORD COURT--Saturday At about half past eleven o'clock the Right Hon. the Chief Baron entered the court and took his seat on the Bench, when he proceeded to try.



This was an appeal from a decision of the Assistant Barrister at last October sessions.

Mr. JOHNSTON stated the case--It was an action for 10l. for an I O U for loss sustained in consequence of a house purchased by applicant and plaintiff on a certain farm being let go to wreck, and another detained for a year and a half, contrary to agreement.

Alexander WALSH examined by Mr. JOHNSTON--Knows Mr. SPOTTEN, is his attorney; recollects agreement between SPOTTEN and Mr. RUTLEDGE about certain lands. On that occasion MR. SPOTTEN made an objection that there were parties residing on the lands, who could not then give up possession; got on that occasion an I O U for 10l., as a warrant that their houses would be delivered up to 6th May following; this affair occurred in April.

Cross-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--The I O U was a guarantee for surrender of houses belonging to the cottiers on the farm.

To the court--The consideration money was paid in five springers and 19l. of money, making up the entered sum of 47l. the stipulated purchase money.

James SPOTTEN, the plaintiff, examined by Mr. JOHNSON--Recollects the two houses on the lands bought by him; got possession of the lands in April but did not get the houses for nearly a year and a half after that, one of them was then down; offered RUTLEDGE, if he put up the house, to give him his I O U; would give 20l. less for the farm without that house than with it.

To the court--They were mud-wall houses thatched, with two rooms in each.

[Examination and cross-examination of Robert M'AULEY, who was Mr. SPOTTEN's herd at the time and knew the house occupied by SMYTH and KELAHER; also of Mr. Thomas JOHNSTON and Owen SMITH]

His Lordship said it was a serious question whether the action was sustainable in point of law. The body of the I O U is absolute, and the condition is merely a memorandum of the witness....The would, therefore, affirm the dismiss with costs.

BRADY, Appelant; Henry SMYTH, Respondent

This was a case of ejectment for half an acre of ground in Aughnaconny. The Assistant Barrister gave a decree in possession.

John M'MANUS examined by Mr. James ARMSTRONG--Knows the lands of Aughaconny; held 10 acres there for 20 years; knows the half acre of meadow now in dispute; it belonged to Henry SMYTH's holding for 34 years; he (witness) had nothing to do with it, though he held the other half; knows a ripsod raised to distinguish the half acre belonging to each; when witness held the ground MAGEE held the other half, and after him, KENNY: the ripsod is there still.

Cross-examined by Mr. PEEBLES--George Kemp had several sons; Thomas was one of the; he married a Miss WILTON: the father could give him in the case of the twenty acres, whatever part he liked; KENNY had the half acre when he held it; he sold it to Henry SMYTH.

Re-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--SMYTH is in possession for more than 20 years and had the half acre, until about a year ago, during all that time.

Henry SMYTH examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--Is the plaintiff; got possession of the lands 30 years ago and more, at that time did not get the half acre; when KENNY was going to America in '34 got the half acre from him; held that until May or June last; made hay upon it, &c.; Edward BRADY forced possession of it from him....The lease made to him is now expired; he claims now under a son of George KEMP; but another son claims that half acre.

Edward FEGAN--Is witness to a lease from Edward KEMP to Henry SMYTH, demising all that KENNY held.......

Chief Baron--They have proved possession, and you, being wrong-doers, though actually holding, are not to get the benefit of that possession.

Thomas KEMP examined by Mr. PEEBLES--Is witness to a deed handed to him; that was Thomas KEMP's deed of marriage settlement; knew Mr. Joseph WILTON, the father of Thomas KEMP's wife;....

Joseph WILTON--His daughter was married to Thomas KEMP; on the occasion of the match-making had a conversation with George KEMP about the half acre in dispute; on the first day of treaty George would not give the half acre, but a few days afterwards he agreed to give it if witness would advance in the fortune he was to give his daughter, which he agreed to.....

It was then ordered that a survey of the premises be made, that it might be seen whether the half acre was included in the boundaries marked out in the deed of marriage settlement, their return to be made by the following Monday.

His Lordship said that this was as knotty a case as he had known in Cavan, and this was saying a great deal of it.

The case was put off to be tried in Dublin.

(Before Judge TORRENS)

His Lordship took his seat on the bench... at about eleven o'clock, and proceeded for some time with the fiating of the presentments and took occasion to mention the matter relative to--


He said, addressing the Grand Jury, with regard to the presentment for the old County Fever Hospital, he would fiat the present presentment, as it was quite right and judicious to have the premises put into a sufficient state of repair previous to their being sold...Mr. Robert BORROWES, the foreman, stated that the Grand Jury had received the assent of Lord Farnham for the disposal of the Fever Hospital, but there appeared to be some difficulty in the matter, in consequence of the lease having been made to trustees.

Judge TORRENS--Then let the trustees or the survivors of them be the vendors.

His Lordship then proceeded with


Margaret WALL, a young woman aged eighteen years, pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged her with having had in her possession a linen sheet of the value of 1s., which had been stolen from Thomas WEST, of Belturbet, on the 1st February last, and she having been in gaol once before for a similar offence. She was sentenced to be imprisoned for three months at hard labour.

Thomas YOUNG pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged him with the commission of a homicide, the killing and slaying of one John DALTON, in the month of February last. His Lordship at first sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment, but subsequently mitigated it to six months, in consequence of having received a favourable report of the case from the counsel for the Crown.

The following gentlemen were then sworn on the


Samuel IRWIN, William MAHOOD, JOhn M'CABE, JOhn WILLLIAMSON, James M'CULLOUGH, Arthur FINLAY, Robert GREER, Charles HEELS, Charles HAUGHTON, William JOHNSTON, Arthur IRWIN, and Henry M'KNIGHT.

Patrick NOON, aged 22, Mary NOON, aged 23, and James M'LOUGHLIN, aged 23 years, were then arraigned upon an indictment, which charged them with having committed a burglary and robbery in the house of Mrs. Sarah and Catherine NUGENT, in Swanlinbar, on the night of the 29th January last, and for having had in their possession a large quantity of shawls, scarfs, handkerchiefs, gloves, braids, and other articles stolen therefrom.

Mary NOON, not guilty, and Patrick NOON and James M'LOUGHLIN, guilty, to be imprisoned for four years at penal servitude. The trial possessed no public interest.

George RICHARDSON, aged eighteen years, of a rather unprepossessing aspect, was arraigned upon an indictment which charged him with having, in the parish of Ballintemple, committed an assault upon Margaret REILLY, on the 31st January last, with intent to violate her person.

The facts of this case, as elicited in evidence, are briefly as follows: The prisoner and prosecutrix were living as servants with Mr. James KEITH, who resides near Ballinagh, and on the day laid in the indictment he and his wife left home about ten o'clock in the morning, and did not return until ten o'clock at night, and during their absence the prisoner committed the assault upon prosecutrix with intent, &c., as set forth in the indictment. She resented the indignity offered to her person by striking and inflicting a severe wound upon his head with a pair of tongs, and on the return of her master and mistress informed them of the transaction; they at once sent for the police and had the prisoner arrested. Margaret REILLY went the next day to Mr. DOPPING, the Resident Magistrate, and swore informations against the prisoner for the offence. MR. KEITH, her master, gave her an excellent character.

The prisoner was defended by Mr. John ARMSTRONG. The defence set up was that prosecutrix was an immoral character, and had preferred a similar charge against John LEGHORN, a former master and that she had informed Mr. Thomas KEITH and his wife, Mary KEITH. son and daughter in law of said James KEITH, that the prisoner had done nothing to her (Margaret REILLY), but simply to kiss her upon that occasion, which liberty he had taken once before as he was courting her, all which, on being confronted with the parties, she denied, and after a very lucid charge from the learned judge, the jury at once returned a verdict of guilty.

His Lordship in passing sentence stated to the prisoner, that during the progress of the trial, he had determined to sentence him to only twelve months imprisonment, but in consequence of the line of defence he was advised to set up, he would sentence him to eighteen months imprisonment at hard labour.



There having been three indictments in this case against the prisoners for extortion defrauding the County and conspiracy, when the long pond had been called over, Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., stated the intention of the Crown to proceed on the charge of conspiracy which would bring the matter fully under the notice at the Court.

Mr. MAJOR, on behalf of the traversers, said that as that indictment embraced a great number of cases which would make it much more difficult for the prisoners to meet it, he would suggest that some of the other indictments should rather proceeded with.

His Lordship said the question lay with the Crown; he could not put them on a selection.

MR. SMYLY said he would be sorry to do anything in the case that would savour of unfairness. It was a matter of indifference which they proceed with; they selected the indictment for conspiracy because its issue might render it unnecessary to proceed with the others. He would much rather proceed with the simpler cases; but, owing to irregularities in the office, he feared they might not be able to sustain either of them.

MR. MAJOR said the case of extortion would involve all the others; but, if the crown failed, they could proceed with the others. They would waive, on behalf of the prisoners, all technicalities.

MR. SMYLY agreed to go on with the extortion case, whereupon.

MR. MAJOR said that on behalf of Mr. John Smith SWANZY, they would withdraw the plea, and plead "guilty".

The following were then sworn on the jury:--Edward KENNEDY; John CLEMENGER; Alex. KETTYLE, Patrick FAY, Peter BRADY; James KILROY; Robert ROYCROFT; Eugene M'MANUS; Alexander BERRY; John BERRY; John SHERA and Moses NETTERFIELD, Esqrs.

Samuel SWANZY and John Smith SWANZY, were then indicted for unjustly and unlawfully extorting from certain parties, certain fees, not payable to Samuel SWANZY, as clerk of the Crown, nor to the other prisoner for him.

MR. Samuel SWANZY pleaded not guilty. Mr. John Smith SWANZY pleaded guilty.

MR. SMYLY--This being an unusual case, with which the jury cannot be supposed familiar. I will briefly describe the offence charged, and the duties of the office. The indictment is for extortion against Mr. SWANZY, clerk of the Crown for the county. Extortion in law meaning signifies an oppression under color of right, but strictly speaking the term is applied to the taking money, or anything of value, not due, or more than there is due, or before it is due, by color of office. If, therefore, in the case named in the indictment, MR. SWANZY has taken as fees anything to which he is not legally entitled, beyond doubt he has extorted. I have told you that his office is that of clerk of the Crown; that office comprehends many functions, but our enquiry will be confined to one of them, which it is alleged that the misbehaviour occurred. If the clerk of the Crown has many duties to perform, you are to take it as granted, that in all other particulars they have been well discharged. He has to attend in his office, and in court during the assizes, and must prosecute in cases where the Crown Solicitor cannot. He has also to pay to prosecutors and witnesses the expenses allowed them, and it is out of this head that the prosecution arises. The Clerk of the Crown is paid a salary, and claims certain fees of office, under 49 Geo. III; and, if what is alleged against him were limited to those fees, which he might reasonably believe due to him under the statute, he ought never be prosecuted in a criminal suit. Formerly the Clerk of the Crown received fees from prisoners acquitted, as well as from prosecutors, but the law thought it hard that men acquitted, and who were, therefore, to be supposed unjustly accused, should have to pay any money for having right done them. The 101 sec. of the statute before alluded to, regulates the fees payable to Clerks of the Crown in Ireland. (Reads).....

Now, the case we go upon is that of the Queen a. John CALLAN, in which Patrick BRADY was prosecutor, and which will be fully explained to you. Mary FITZPATRICK, Patrick MURRAY, and others, attended as witnesses in that case and we allege that towards them the extortion we complain of took place.

[Here reference was had to the records...]

Court. Is there a charge of extortion in the case of TAGGART?
MR. SMYLY--There is my lord.
MR. MAJOR--Why a moment ago you struck his name out.
MR. SMYLY continued--When the 1l. was allowed him, he went to Mr. John Smith SWANZY, who filled up a draft for 1l. 9s. 9d., which Mr. SWANZY himself signed, but TAGGART got only 1l. In the same way Mary FITZPATRICK had an order for 19s. 9d., while she got only 10s. Mr. Samuel SWANZY again signing the draft, and Patrick MURRAY received only 5s. or 6s., whereas his order was for 17s 9d., drawn up by Mr. Smith SWANZY, and the draft upon it signed by Mr. Samuel. John MURPHY, also a witness, was charged 2s. 6d. out of an order for 12s. 6d., and there are many other cases....

E. E. MAYNE, Esq.--Is secretary of the grand jury; has searched through all the papers he could find in the crown office for indictments in case of the prosecution of Patrick BRADY against John CALLAN; could find none whatever, nor informations; has the crown book; finds two cases there; Patrick MURPHY, Charles and John MURPHY were witnesses in case No. 1; No. 2 is the prosecution of Francis TAGGART against John CALLAN; TAGGART and Francis DOLAN were witnesses in that case; the bills were ignored;...

(Examination and cross-examination of witnesses)

In many such cases there is an appeal to a hard-hearted Clerk of the Crown, and from him to one believed to be still more hard-hearted-- myself; but here Mr. SWANZY is not hard-hearted, but must considerate. He signed after a draft for an additional nine and ninepence; but gentlemen, that addition is quite a distinct hand writing and ink. What evidence is there that it was not added after the signing of the draft by Mr. SWANZY, and would such evidence be deemed superfluous, when you recollect the dealings of young SWANZY, and the police, which, I am sorry to say it of members of so respectable a body, deceived old Mr. SWANZY, and participated in the frauds, which it attempted to involve him in. Gentlemen, need I trouble you any further?

The Jury immediately handed in their verdict of "Not Guilty," and the Crown entered a "nolle prosequi" on the two other indictments.

March 16, 1854


Magistrates present, Robert BURROWES, Esq., and John DOPPING, Esq., R.M.

Edward Lenox SLOAN, Robert STINSON, and

Defendant had detained several pieces of goods given her to sprig. Mr. SLOANE would not swear to the value of the unworked material, but was positive MAGUIRE was the person to whom he had given it on the 14th and 15th of February last. Mr. SLOANE referred to the act of Parliament, 3 & 4 Vic., cap 91, sec. 2.

Chairman. Have you any witness, Mr. SLOANE?
Mr. SLOANE. Witness! what witness did I want but my book?
Chairman. Where is your book?
Mr. SLOANE. Where is it? It is away, but I have an extract from it.
Chairman. You must get the book.

MR. SLOANE having come back with the book, slipped a retainer to Mr. John ARMSTRONG, who succeeded in obtaining a conviction against MAGUIRE, who, for the offence perpetrated against Mr. SLOANE, as well as against Messrs. CARNDUFF and STINSON, was sentenced to be imprisoned for two months, or to pay a fine of 2l.


Mr. TULLY, for the complainant, stated that the parties are sister and brother; and complainant had some narcotic given her by John REILLY, which stupified her, when the alleged offence took place.

Bridget CAVANAGH proved to the circumstances; she got a drink in Stradone, where defendant was present; cannot say what it was, but it had the taste of whiskey. Before she left home that morning had not eaten or drunk anything. After taking the drink went home with John and his wife, and passed a house on the road which belonged to her (complainant). Pat REILLY was caretaker in the house; does not remember giving possession to John, and was not competent to give it at the time alleged. Next morning ordered defendant to leave the house; he said he would when he could provide himself with a place. Defendant frequently threatened her (complainant's) life, and she is afraid of him.

To Defendant. Did not ask him into Owen FARRELLY's in Stradone to drink; to her knowledge never invited him to go and live in MAGUIRE's house.

Pat REILLY. Was in the house went defendant came to it, but he said he got possession of it from Bridget.

Defendant said he would give up possession as soon as he got a place to live in, but knows not how soon that may be.

The case was dismissed, as it could not be proved that complainant gave not up the possession.

After the parties left the Court, the defendant it seems again threatened Bridget, who came back, and swearing that she was in fear of him, had him bound over, himself in 10l. and two sureties in 5l. each, to keep the peace towards her for one year.

Edward Lennox SLOANE a. Bridget RUDDY

Defendant was charged with returning a piece of sprigging work unfinished.

Chairman. What loss have you sustained?
Mr. SLOANE. None.
Chairman. And why this action?
Mr. SLOANE. Just look to the 18th section of the act, and you will find that it is immaterial whether I have lost anything or not.

Defendant's mother stated that her daughter was engaged in helping to till the farm, and there were plenty of persons living by sprigging who would be glad to get so much of the work done and be paid for it.

The Bench ordered the work to be done by the girl, and then she should be paid for it.

Mr. SLOANE. And I will keep the expense of the summons out of it.

Chairman. You will just do what the Bench orders in the case; you have not right to say you will do this thing or that in the matter.

The girl got a month to finish the piece.

Mr. DOPPING stated that where he was adjudicating he would never let a decree pronounced, unless the girl took the work with the consent of her mother, if alive. It was unreasonable that parents should be deprived of the services of their children, by their going of their own accord to get work which they might fancy.

Baileborough, 13th March 1854


At a meeting of Cesspayers, held at Corlismore, near Ballinagh, on the 2nd March, 1854.

Mr. Adam JOHNSTON, Dromcoughal, in the chair.
Mr. James DUIGNAN, Killeshandra, Secretary.

It was resolved, That the Ratepayers of the County of Cavan feel it to be incumbent upon them to present Mr. Michael MASTERSON, of Corlismore, with a substantial Testimonial, commensurate with his services and indefatigable exertions for the reduction of the County Cess, for the last four years, whereby he incurred considerable expense and much loss of time, and succeeded in obtaining a considerable retrenchment of same.

Contributions will be received at the office of the "ANGLO-CELT, by Mr. James REILLY, Farnham Arms, and Dr. KELLY, of Cavan, as well as by Mr. William FARIS, Cloggy, and Mr. James O'REILLY, Lacken, Mill-owners; Mr. Thomas JOHNSTON, Cornafane, shopkeeper, and by the Chairman and Secretary.

The following are the names of the contributors:--

Rev. Thomas O'REILLY, Crosherlough, 1l.
William FARIS, Esq., Cloggy, 1l.
John WARREN, Esq., Brucehall, 10s.
Mr. Thomas JOHNSTON, Curnafane, 10s.
Mr. James DUIGNAN, Curnafane, 10s
Mr. Adam JOHNSTON, Curnafane, 5s.
Mr. Phill MAGUIRE, Lacken, 5s.
Mr. Daniel SHANNAHY, Courlismore, 5s.
Mr. Thomas MASTERSON, Bruce, 2s. 6.d
Mr. Francis SHERIDAN, Cordowna, 2s. 6d.
Mr. James SHERIDAN, Cordowna, 2s. 6d.
Widow GALLIGAN, Drumnary, 1s.
Mr. BERNARD REILLY, Drumcrow, 2s. 6d.
Mr. Thomas SHERIDAN, Drumcoughill, 1s
Mr. John HUGHES, Drumnary, 1s.
Mr. Andy LEADY, Drumnary, 1s.
Mr. MIchael BRADY, Mullaghboy, 1s.
Mr. Bernard FINIGAN, Drumnary, 2s. 6d.
Mr. John MASTERSON, Castle, 1l.
Mr. John DUIGNAN, Coranea, 2s. 6d.
Mr. Laurence CORR, Loughdavin, 1s.
Mr. John CROSSIN, Loughdavin, 1s.
Mr. Michael MAGUIRE, Gartalough, 5s.
Mr. Charles MAGUIRE, Drumrow, 2s. 6d.
Mr. John MAGUIRE, Cordowna, 2s 6d.
Mr. James KEITH Drumrockeady, 5s. 0d.
Mr. Gregory SULLIVAN, Bailieborough, 2s.
Mr. James SHERIDAN, Cordowna, 1s.
Mr. Wm. WILTON, Ballihillan, 1s
Rev. John O'REILLY, C.C., Coranea, 5s.
Mr. Patrick SOLOHAN, Coranea, 2s. 6d.
Mr Patrick REILLY, Drumshiney, 1s.
Mr James SOLOHAN, Cordonohy, 2s. 6d.
Mr Patrick KIERNAN, LEitrim, county LOngford, 1s.
Mr Charles REILLY, Behy, 1s
Mr James MASTERSON, Castlepoles, 2s. 6d.
Mr Patrick SHERIDAN, Cornaugh, county Leitrim, 1s.
Mr William COMFORD, Behy, 1s.
Mr Edward BURNS, Corronary, 1s.
Mr John PRUNTY, Coranea, 1s.
Mr HILL, Coronea, 1s.
Mr Farrell SHERIDAN, Cranagh, 1s.
Mr Michael MASTERSON, Castlepoles, 1l.
Mr CARTY, Cormeen, 1s.
Mr Thos. SHERIDAN, Drumcrow, 2s. 6d.
Mr John SMITH, Garrymore, 1s.
Mr Henry M'AVEETY, Gortahurk, 1s.
Mr FOSTER, Ardlougher, 1s.
Mr Wm. FOSTER, Lilmainham, 1s.
Mr John LEADY, Drumcrow, 2s. 6d.
Doctor O'REILLY, Ballinagh, 5s.
Mr Thomas CLERK, Ballinagh 1s.
Messrs. FITZPATRICK and LYNCH, Ballinagh, 2s. 6d.
Mr Patrick BRADY, Tullyco, 1s.
Mr William MORRISON, Lacken, 1s.
Mr KELLY, Crenara, 1s.
Mr John CAMBLE, Drumkeeran, 2s.
Mr James GOODFELLOW, Corr, 2s. 6d.
Mr Henry FOSTER, Drumcoughill, 1s.
Mr Francis KIERNAN, Coolbawn, 2s. 6d.
Mr John IRWIN, Shanker, 1s
Mr Phill BRADY, Kevey, 1s.
Mr John M'KIERNAN, Cournifane, 2s. 6d.
Mr Pat REILLY, Drumkeeran, 5s.
Mr James MASTERSON, Bruce, 10s.
Mr William FORSYTHE, Ballintemple, 1s.
Mr Peter SHEILS, Solohan, 2s.
Mr James REID, Drumcoughill, 1s.
Mr Patrick DONOGHO, Aughill, 1s.
Mr Patrick SKINIR, Bruce, 6d.
Mr James M'CANN, Shanker, 2s. 6d.
Mr Edward CAMBLE, Drumbess, 2s. 6d.
Mr CLARK, Drumkeeran, 1s.
Mr James DOYLE, Drumkeeran, 1s.
Mr Philip MASTRSON, Mullaboy, 10s.
Mr Patrick SHERIDAN, Drumkeering, 1s.
Mr Pat KROUGHAN, Mullaboy, 1s
Mr Michael BRADY, Drumkoy, 2s. 6.
Mr Patrick BURNS, Drumbess, 1s.
Mr Patrick COBEY, Shanker, 1s.
Mr Terence LYNCH, Mullyanbly, 1
Mr Patrick LYNCH, Mullyanbly, 1s.
Mr John HUGHES, Mullyanbly, 1s.
Mr John BRADY, Corr, 1s.
Mr Robert CARTWRIGHT, Drumcoughill, 2s. 6d.
Mr William CARTWRIGHT, Drumcoughill, 2s. 6d.
Mr William CARTWRIGHT, Drumcoughill, 2s. 6d.
Mr James SHERIDAN, Cossellhill, 5s.
Mr Luke MASTERSON, Castle, 10
Mr John CHARTERS, Courlismore, 2s. 6d.
Mr Thomas M'KEIRNAN, Cournifane, 1s.
Mr John MASTERSON, Bruce, 5s.
Mr John MASTERSON, Lacken, 1l.
Mr Michael REILLY, Drumcoughill, 1s.
Mr Bernard BRADY, Mullyambly, 2s. 6d.
Mr James MAGAURAN, Bruce, 1s.
Mr James REILLY, Lacken Mills, 1l.

March 23, 1854

MARK OF RESPECT--On yesterday and this day a number of men assembled with proper equipments in Croobany, to harrow and sow the farm of Counsellor HILL, which, it will be remembered, was ploughed for him in the same spirit some six or eight weeks ago. Right zealously did they apply themselves to the accomplishment of their labour of love; and now that it is all finished, we may state our opinion, that no work ever redounded more to the credit of him that was passive, or of them that were active, than the tilling of the farm in Croobany. If Counsellor HILL deserved not the honour, he would not have obtained it, if the people deserved not the kindnesses for which they gave the honour, they would never have been so grateful. First came the rich with their offereings of gold, then the people with the sweat of their brow, and even in the latter case, there was a distinction to be noticed, for while none but County Cavan men were at the ploughing, none but County Longford men were at the sowing; each would do its own part, and would not allow another to share with them the burden; of a verity, there are good agents in Ireland yet, and the Irish people are indeed generous. We subjoin a list of those who came, each a distance of at least fifteen miles, with horses and harrows:

Philip REILLY, for Mr. Robert WALPOLE, Arva;
Chas. REILLY, bailiff;
Pat DUFFY, Fyohara;
Pat DUFFY, do;
Pat DUFFY, do;
Owen SHERIDAN, do;
Michael REILLY, do;
Pat LEAVEY, do;
James DUFFY, do;
James DUFFY, do;
John MORRIS, do;
Pat LEAVEY, do;
Pat BRIODY, do.

PATRICK'S DAY IN CAVAN. About three o'clock a.m. the band, which, by the way, we are sorry to see so little cared for by the inhabitants of the town, commenced to play and proceeded round the town executing "Patrick's Day,", the Sprig of Shillelah," &c., in a most creditable and spirit stirring manner. In the evening they went again through the town, to the great gratification of us all, when, strange to say, they were stopped, and the names of every one of them taken down by the police.....

The intended reduction of postage between this country and the colonies to a uniform rate of sixpence on letters not weighing more than half an ounce is now about to come into operation.

Mr. CROWDER is mentioned as the probable successor to Mr. Justice TALFOURD.--Daily News.

Neal QUIN, Bryan GRANT, and Patrick COOMEY, for the murder of Mr. BATESON, are to be executed on the 10th of April.


In Cavan, on Wednesday, the 22nd inst., the wife of Zachariah WALLACE, Esq., of this journal, of a son.

(Before the Chief Baron)

The Queen v. Daniel SWEENY

The prisoner was indicted with the murder of Owen DOGHERTY, at a place called Dangloe, more than 20 years ago.

Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., and Mr. JOHNSTON, prosecuted, and Mr. NORMAN and Mr. James HAMILTON defended the prisoner.

It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses, that on Easter Sunday morning, 1833, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the wife of the prisoner, in consequence of the latter having driven the sheep of the deceased off her husband's land with dogs. They were scuffling with each other, and in "holts" according to the language of some of the witnesses, when the prisoner, who observed them from his own house, snatched up the tongs, rushed to the spot, and struck deceased over the head with them; before this several members of each family came up and took part in the affray, from the blows received in which the deceased died the following day. The prisoner then left the country, but returned almost to the immediate neighbourhood several years ago.

Mr. HAMILTON, in the absence of Mr. NORMAN, addressed the jury for the defence, who, after some deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.

Sentence deferred.

The Queen v. J. MOOHUN and J. M'KELVIS

The prisoners were indicted for corruptly taking money under the pretence of helping the prosecutor to the recovery of stolen goods.

Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., and Mr. Robert JOHNSTON prosecuted.

Mr. NORMAN and Mr. DOWSE defended the prisoners.

The facts of the case were as follows:--A person named David STEWART owed 3l. 5s to the prisoner MOOHUN, which he showed a reluctance to pay. A cow was accordingly carried away from him, and he was informed by MOOHUN that if he placed the 3l. 5s. in M'KELVIE's hands for MOOHUN, his cow would be restored. M'KELVIE agreed to hold the money for this purpose, and STEWART handed it over to him. This short and ready mode of enforcing a demand, rivaling in simplicity even the machinery of the Common Law Procedure Act, is popularly known in Donegal as the "execution of a Glenswilly decree."

The jury found the prisoners guilty of the fact, and the Chief Baron refused to reserve a question for the Court of Criminal Appeal as to whether those facts came within the act under which the indictment was framed, observing that this was the second or third conviction for a similar offence, which seemed to be recognised custom in the county.

Sentence deferred.

(Before Mr. Justice TORRENS)
The Queen v. James CANNON

The prisoner was found guilty of an aggravated assault with several other persons on a party of coast guards, more than five years ago, near Bunbeg, in this county. He had gone to America and returned, and on his return voluntarily surrendered to stand trial.

Two of the coast guard party swore positively to his identity.

The prisoner was defended by Mr. HAMILTON. Sentence, twelve months' imprisonment.

The Queen v. James DEVITT and C. GALLAGHER

The prisoners were indicted for waylaying and beating Patrick QUIN, near Glenties, in this county.

Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., and Mr. Robert JOHNSTON, prosecuted, and Mr. James HAMILTON defended the prisoner.

It appeared by the evidence of the prosecutor that he overtook two men on his way home from the fair of Glenties, on the 13th November last, about three o'clock in the day. That one of the men, GALLAGHER, entered into conversation with him, and immediately after DEVITT struck him, with a loaded whip, and knocked him off his horse; he did not know either of them before; was sure as to DEVITT; not so sure as to GALLAGHER; he was severely beaten when down, and saved by a person named Patrick LOGAN, who interposed and protected him.

Patrick LOGAN was also produced by the Crown, and deposed that DEVITT, whom he knew, was not one of the persons who beat QUIN.

The jury, however, found DEVITT guilty, and acquitted GALLAGHER.

(Before Judge TORRENS)

This was an action of replevin. Plea, eviction of part of the premises. The premises, consisting of the demesne lands of a Kilmacredden, &c., were held by the plaintiff under a fee-farm grant of 1801. The defendant purchased the grantor's interest in 1813, and had taken possession of the above, between the demesne and the sea, the seaweed of which he gave to his tenants, also some other premises called the Port, which had many years ago been delivered up to the defendant by a servant of the plaintiff's family.

The jury found that both the shore and the Port were comprised in the grant of 1801, and that they had been taken possession of by the defendant, thereby supporting the plea. There was, therefore, a suspension of the rent. Verdict for the Plaintiff.

Counsel for Plaintiff, Messrs. C. BROOKE, Q.C., NORMAN and Dominick M'CAUSLAND. For defendant, Messrs. MAJOR, Q.C., HUNTER and Robert JOHNSTONE. Agents for plaintiff, Messrs. TISDALL and JOHNS. For defendant, Mr. LANGFORD.


This was an action of trespass for assault. Plea, not guilty. The circum- stances were as follow:--Plaintiff and defendant were travelling together on a public car; the defendant got off to walk up a hill, when the plaintiff left his own seat beside the driver and got on the defendant's; the defendant being about to resume his seat found it occupied by plaintiff and requested him to move; this the plaintiff refused, when, after some altercation, the defendant pulled the plaintiff off the car, and he fell over the fence on the roadside, thereby breaking his arm, and otherwise hurting himself. Plaintiff was a carpenter by trade, and was prevented from working for several months.

The driver of the car swore that the plaintiff was drunk, but this was denied by a passenger.

The damages were laid at £200.

The jury found for the plaintiff £20.

Counsel for plaintiff, Messrs. MAJOR, Q.C., BROOKE, Q.C., and M'CAUSLAND; agent, Mr. Lane. For the defendant--Messrs. NORMAN and J. HAMILTON; agent, Mr. Thomas CHAMBERS.


Cormack GALLAHER, Neal GALLAHER, and John GALLAHER, were indicted under the Whiteboy Act, for unlawfully compelling one John O'DONNELL to leave his farm in the month of January last.

MR. SMYTH, Q.C., and Mr. Robert JOHNSTONE prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. DOWSE defended the prisoners. John O'DONNELL examined by Mr. SMYTH, Q.C.--He and his son were working in the farm he had purchased from James SWEENEY, when Cormack GALLAHER came up and caught his spade, and told him he must leave that and give up working on that farm; the other prisoners came up and said the same thing; he (witness) left the land and did not go back since.

Cross-examined by Mr. DOWSE--Had given nine pounds for the land to James SWEENEY; did hear it rumoured that SWEENEY had taken the land of Cormack GALLAHER to keep as a pledge till the arrears of rent were paid; did believe that this rumour was true; was to give SWEENEY 35l. for the land; only paid nine; I will not swear that GALLAHER was not looking for the balance of this sum; never paid that balance to any one; John had a stick; Neal took it from him, and said there must be nothing done only in peace.

After the examination of another witness the crown closed, and Mr. DOWSE submitted to the court that the indictment was not sustained, and that there was no case for the jury.

His Lordship said that it was a mere difference as to civil rights, and though the best plan would be to direct the jury to acquit the prisoners. His lordship also observed that the magistrates should have admitted the prisoners to bail, and not have confined them in gaol on such a charge.

The prisoners were acquitted.

Patrick CURRAN was indicted for an assault, inflicting actual bodily harm on Peter FRIEL, and also on Peter FRIEL, junior, his son.

Counsel for the crown prosecuted; Mr. DOWSE defended the prisoner.

It appeared that there was a dispute as to the right of cutting turf on some bog; and the witnesses for the prosecution said that the prisoner, without any provocation, attacked the two FRIELs, and cut the father on the head and the son on the hand.

There was contradictory evidence adduced for the defence; and after Mr. DOWSE had addressed the jury, and the Judge had charged.

The jury found the prisoner guilty of assaulting the father, and acquitted him on the second indictment for the assault on the son.

Sentence deferred.

Daniel M'MENAMIN was indicted for an assault on the police while in the execution of their duty, and also for a common assault; and the same prisoner and James GORDON, Hugh MAGINTY, and Samuel FERGUSON, for a riot and a common assault.

The Crown prosecuted; and Mr. DOWSE appeared (illegible).. Counsel at considerable length commented forcibly and minutely on the evidence for the Crown, and stated the substance of that he meant to adduce. The evidence for the prisoners differed in many parts from that of the police. After ten witnesses for the defence,

The Chief Baron charged the jury, and said that he regretted to find that violence, which was altogether unnecessary, had been used by the police, for which they might be amenable before a jury. He had almost always found the conduct of the police most excellent, and he was sorry to find it the contrary on the present occasion. However, this was not justification for M'MENAMIN if he interfered with them in their duty at the commencement of this business; but on this there was contrary evidence. The counsel for the prisoners had correctly stated the law and it was for the jury to consider the evidence on both sides.

The jury having retired, the court was adjourned at ten o'clock at night; and at half-past ten, the Chief Baron having been sent for, the jury found Daniel M'MENAMIN guilty of an assault, and acquitted the other prisoners of the riot and assault, and M'MENAMIN of the charge of riot.

March 30, 1854


T. THOMPSON, Esq., in the chair. Other Magistrates present-- Messrs. ERSKINE, SMITH, and DOPPING, R.M.


A charge of having persons drinking in his house after ten o'clock, p.m., on Sunday, the 12th inst.

Police Constable Henry CLEMENTS found a number of persons drinking in defendant's house on the Half-acre at a quarter past ten o'clock on last Sunday week. There was whiskey there, but witness saw no money paid.

Defendant stated that they were all friends whom he had drinking there that day; there were thirty of them his guests that day.

Mr. DOPPING--Clearly, MR. KING, you keep an open house.

Bryan LEE proved that there were two bride's parties in Mr. KING's house that night; witness was of the number invited; there were none in the house when the police came in but those who had dined there.

Mr. SMITH said KING should have dismissed his guests before ten o'clock. If a recurrence took place he should insist on a fine being struck.

Mr. THOMPSON--And, Mr. SMITH, would you turn out a man you invited to dine at so early an hour--would be little obliged to you in the circumstances?

Mr. DOPPING--Go home, Mr. KING, and I wish you many more such parties.

The case was dismissed.


Anne BRADY was charged for selling whiskey before two o'clock, but it appearing that her servant-girl had brought in word that it was after two o'clock, the case was dismissed.


This was a complaint for refusal by a weekly tenant to deliver up a holding after due notice.

Mr. THOMPSON--Does she owe you any rent?

Witness--I can't say she does, your honour.

Mr. SMYTH--Then dismiss the case; the defendant has performed her part of the contract by paying the stipulated rent, and the plaintiff must perform hers.

Mr. THOMPSON--Surely you don't mean to say that a tenant may not be ejected if he has paid up his rent.

Mr. SMITH--I hold that in this case there is no 'reasonable cause' why the tenant should be dispossessed, and the act under which the summons bought gives it as a defence to the summons for possession; that a reasonable cause can be shewn why the posses- sion should be withheld. Defendant here alleges full payment of rent. If that is not a 'reasonable cause' why she should not be turned out I wish you would tell us what you would look upon as a 'reasonable cause'.

Mr. DOPPING agreed with Mr. SMITH; he was quite unable to compre- hend what was a 'reasonable cause' for refusing to quit, if punctual payment of rent was not. He would also beg Mr. THOMPSON to produce one more reasonable.

Mr. THOMPSON did not know what one he would allege; at any rate there were several phrases in Acts of Parliament which could not well bear accurate inquiry as to their complete meaning.

Some further discussion having taken place on the point, Complainant was asked why he wished to eject a punctual tenant, and replied that she kept an improper house.

Here 'reasonable cause' was shewn, and a decree for possession was granted.

Thursday, March 30th

There were on bench, besides the Assistant Barrister, Messrs. BURROWES, THOMPSON, SMITH, ERSKINE, J.P.s, and DOPPING, R.M.

About eleven o'clock the following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:--

Thomas HARTLEY, Countenan; Edward KENNEDY, Cavan; Wm. Moore BLACK, Cavan; Alexander KETTYLE, Cavan; Francis M'CABE, Cavan; Wm. FARIS, Cloggy; John WARREN, Bruce-hall; James KILROY, Turin; Samuel KENNEDY, Springfield; John LOVE, Creamfield; James KELLY, Cavan; John MOORE, Ballymacarue; Henry DOUGLAS, Cavan.

His Worship addressing them said--Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I have to tell you that the cases for your consideration are of a light character, and for this I congratulate the county. There are nine cases standing. There is a case in which a grand juror is prosecutor, and, as is usual, he will leave the room when that case is being considered. Gentlemen, I have nothing more to trouble you with.


Farrell DOLAN, riot, no prosecution;
James REILLY, rescue, no prosecution;
Patrick MULLIGAN, larceny, not guilty;
John PLUNKETT, senior and junior, James PLUNKETT, Anne and George PLUNKETT, riot and assault, no prosecution;
Owen HEAVY, forcible possession, no prosecution;
Mary PLUNKETT, assault, no prosecution;
Michael KELLY, larceny, no bill;
Thomas COVIN, Terence and Luke M'DONALD, riot and assault, jury could not agree; discharged by order of court, transfer entering into securing of 5l. each, to appear when called on after four days notice;

one spirit application, no attendance;
seventy civil bills, five ejectments.


The following is the name and address and electoral division for which each guardian is elected:--

Agaboy, William DALY, Drumary; Anny, John MULLEN, Cumry; Ashfield, Thomas GRAHAM, Carrickalvey, Cummingstown, Robert KELLY, Drutamin; Cootehill, John M'GAHAN and Francis BRADY, Cootehill; Cormeen George BENNIE, Farmoyle House; Corraneary, Patt M'CABE, Dernakesh; Dawsongrove, Thomas DAWSON, Drumany; Drum, none; Thomas BRADY, LIsboduff; Drung, Bernard M'CABE, Drumowna; Killynenagh, William RICHEY, Racreehan; Knappagh, Bernard M'ENROE, Cashel; Larah North, Philip SMITH, Artina; Larah South, Patrick O'CONNELL, Moneycass; Lisnavene James HARPER, Lisnavene; Rakenny Owen FOY, Lisboduff; Tullyvin East, Joseph ADAMS, Rakane; Tullyvin West, Michael BRADY, Teevananass.


This being the first day of meeting of the newly elected Board, there was an unusually large attendance of members.

At the request of several members of the board we publish the annexed account of the number of times each member of the late Board attended during his year of office. By this list the ratepayers will see how their interests were attended to by their representatives. The figures, (which are supplied by the Clerk of the Union), show the number of attendances of each guardian:


Hon. S. R. MAXWELL...3
Robt. BURROWES, Esq....25
Wm. HUMPHRYS, Esq....5
James HAMILTON, Esq....2
A. BRUSH, Esq....18
John E. VERNON, Esq....3
Wm. SMITH, Esq....34
T. THOMPSON, Esq....13
Captain ERSKINE...3
John GUMLEY, Esq....7
Captain PHILLIPS...21
J. A. NESBITT, Esq...1
S. MOORE, Esq....5
J. H. STOREY, Esq....1
Major BRADY...1


Mr. James Berry...1
Mr. John NAYLOR...13
Mr Wm. FOSTER, jun....15
Mr George NESBITT...22
Mr James KILROY...15
Mr Wm. FOSTER, sen....19
Mr John ROGERS...28
Mr John WARREN...13
Mr Thomas REILLY...18
Mr James M'CAFFRY...16
Mr Samuel N. KNIPE...6
Mr Robert FEGAN...33
Mr Wm. M. BLACK...15
Mr John LYONS...2
Mr John A. FARIS...11
Mr Patrick GAFFNEY...5
Mr Peter BRADY...30
Mr Bernard GAFFNEY...16
Mr Thomas STAFFORD...4
Mr Laurence LAMBE...27
Mr William SPINKS...10
Mr Peter DONNELLY...10
Mr Owen DONEGAN...11
Mr Anthony KILROY...11
Mr Henry FARIS...6
Mr C. W. MOFFATT...9
Mr Robert BUCHANAN...6
Mr Hugh BRADY...21
Mr George W. BELL...15
Mr William BROWNE...6
Mr Alexander BERRY...8
Mr Thomas HARTLEY...7
Mr Wm. PRATT...10

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.