Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan

August 6, 1859


Before Richard A. Minnet, Esq., J.P., and John Veevers, Esq., R.M.


This was an action for 10s., balance of the price of a pig which John BAYLEY sold Patrick JONES in Shercock, on 13th July.

Complainant stated that he sold the pig to the defendant for £1 15s.; got £1 from him and 5s. from his son; both of them confused witness at the time about a "luck penny"....Defendant deposed he bought many pigs, and was always correct in his payments; he swore positively that he paid the entire sum...The Bench ordered a decree for the sum claimed.


The case arose out of a dispute about a bog bank. Patrick LYNCH, the complainant, holds a bog bank from J. H. ADAMS, Esq., which he has held for eight years; the defendant, who is an old woman, took forcible possession of the bank, which, as complainant stated, she had no right to do. The defendant said the bank was her property, and called GREY, the bailiff to prove it.....the Bench postponed the case till the bailiff would see the bank.


This action was for an assault.

The plaintiff, Bridget M'INREW, was sworn, and deposed that a short time ago she sent to level a fence or ditch which defendant and his son had made on her land;....defendant came in on her ground when he was making it, and when she went to level it both defendant and his son assaulted her, and knocked her down and threw the weapons upon her while she was prostrated....Patrick M'INREW, an interesting little boy, complainant's son, aged 13 years, was sworn, and said that he met the defendant going to the bog and he told him he would leave corpses before he'd return; he thought it was his mother that was alluded to by the threat; he saw him knock her down twice...

George SEAN was called upon and said he surveyed the ground where the fence was a long time ago; he could not tell on whose land it was, as it is only of late it was made.

In his defence MASTERSON stated that the bog where the fence was made was surely his....

The assault, however, being proved by so many witnesses, he was fined 2s. 6d., and costs; their Worships warning him that if he'd misbehave in future, he'd be more severely dealt with.


This was a case of abusive and threatening language, but the complainant having, in the opinion of the Bench, given some provocation, the case was dismissed.


This was an action for an assault and other damages, wherein Neil COONEY was plaintiff, and Michael LENNON defendant.

Neil COONEY sworn--On the 11th instant defendant, in a furious manner, drove my cows from where they were grazing....he beat the cattle addition to these acts, he brought my scythe from off the ground where the cattle was grazing and cut my son's face with it....he was very violent and challenged me to fight him, but not being willing I declined fighting.

Daniel COONEY was next sworn--He said that on the 11th instant, LENNON was carrying away his father's scythe with which he was mowing on the ground in dispute; that he attempted to prevent him whereupon he gave the "keen weapon", a check, thereby inflicting a cut on his face....

In his defence LENNON stated that the cattle were upon his ground, and that where COONEY was mowing belong to him also...

Mr. SLOAN was sworn, and was of opinion that the bog was attached to defendant's farm; he believed that where LENNON drew the stick was the proper mearing between the portion of the bog allotted to him and COONEY.

In justification of his taking away the scythe, defendant said he considered himself entitled to bring it, having found it on his own land.

Believing, however, that he was not justified in retaining the scythe in his possession, their Worships ordered him to return it and pay the costs of the court.


This case also arose out of a dispute about the use and occupation of bog.

The complainant, Thomas FOX, being sworn said that when he first went to his place, the Dean ADAMS (since deceased) allowed him the use of the bog....The defendant stated that the bog in question was not near Fox's farm at all, that he had the use of it these 16 or 17 years without ever being disputed till the present...George SLOAN was examined, and deposed that the late Dean Adams sent him to divide the bog between them both; tis a long time ago, and they both graze upon it since.

Seeing the difficulty of the case, the Bench referred it for decision to Mr. WINDE, the agent of the property.

Some other cases of no interest having been disposed of, the Court rose.


(Before Wm. Babington, Esq., J.P., Chairman; N. Montgomery, Esq., J.P., J. Storey, Esq., and W. M. Hickson, Esq., R.M.)


Mary REILLY (a quiet-looking young girl) preferred a claim for balance of wages against Hugh REILLY. She stated that she had been hired by him in May last until next November, for which time she was to receive 20s. She had lately got a little unwell, and defendant's wife insisted upon her going home until she got better.--Complainant reluctantly complied, and sent her sister to fill her place during her absence. When, however, she returned at the expiration of a few days, defendant and his wife refused to take her back, and were after hiring another girl.

Defendant and his wife said they had hired the other girl in consequence of complainant's mother having sent a message to the effect that she did not know when her daughter wold be able to go back to work...

Complainant's mother denied having sent the message sworn to be defendant and his wife.

The Bench gave an order for 8s. and costs.


Robert MURROW and Thomas REILLY summoned John MURRAY for having assaulted them.

Robert MORROW (sic) deposed that he had been cutting turf on the Ballyhaise road, near Redhill, on the 26th ult., and was walking behind his car (which was loaded) on his way home, his servant boy, Thomas REILLY, being at the horse's head, leading him, when they noticed the defendant driving towards them in a car, along with another man; he appeared to be drunk, and was shouting and singing; he called out in an excited manner to complainant to pull his horse out of the way; complainant was at the proper side of the road at the time, and defendant had plenty of room to pass; however he (complainant) brought his horse as near the ditch as possible.....when defendant came up, he jumped off his car, and caught hold of complainant's servant and also of his horse; asked him what he meant, when he collared complainant and shook him violently;....

Thomas REILLY, the second complainant, corroborated MORROW's testimony.

Philip FLOOD deposed that he was cutting turf at the time of the assault...saw MURRAY (who was drunk) strike the first blow.

MURRAY had a cross-case against the two last complainants, and swore that he was driving his car quietly along the road...was on business for Mr. MERVYN, of Cavan, and was quite sober, having only take a half-glass of whiskey....

After consulting, the Bench dismissed the case of Morrow against Murray and Murry (sic) against Morrow, as it appeared that they both had been fighting. They considered, however, that the assault upon Thomas Reilly had been clearly proved against Murray, and would impose a fine of 10s, and costs.

Phil. NEWMAN and Thomas SMITH summoned Phil. GAFFNEY for having illegally impounded their asses. It appeared that Gaffney had caught them in a field of oats belonging to him, and drove them into Cavan, where he placed them in the pound, knowing them to belong to complainants, who had offered to pay for any damage the asses had done his oats.

The Chairman read the section of the act of parliament, and informed Gaffney that he had committed a very serious breach of the law, and exposed himself to a heavy penalty, by impounding the asses when he was aware to whom they belonged.

Gaffney pleaded ignorance of the law on the matter.

The Bench taking this into consideration fined him 6d. and costs.

There were some other cases which we reported, but the pressure of our space prevents their insertion.

August 13, 1859



This case was fixed for hearing before the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in chamber this day. It will be recollected that, while on circuit, a few days since, Mr. CURRAN applied to his lordship at his lodging in Maryborough, for a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to the Rev. Hugh HANNA, a Presbyterian minister residing in Belfast, requiring him to deliver up to her mother a child named Margaret MAGEE, whom he refused to surrender, as was alleged, except upon certain conditions, to which the mother of the child would not assent. It was stated that the child and her mother were Roman Catholics, and they lived in Johnston's-place, Belfast, that the father of the child was dead since 1846, and that he also was a Roman Catholic; that she missed her child for some days in the early part of the last month, and at length discovered that she had been in the house of the Rev. Mr. HANNA, out of which she found her coming with a Bible in her hand. The child refused to go home with her mother then, but was sent home next morning, but subsequently went away again, and the Rev. Mr. Hanna, admitted that she was stopping with him, and offered to give her up, provided the mother would allow her to go to meeting. The mother refused to do this, and being unable to get possession of the child on any other conditions, the application for a writ of habeas corpus was made, in order that she might continue to educate her in her own and her husband's faith. The conditional order was granted and the parties appeared before the Chief Justice, at his house in Leeson-street, this day.......

A long argument took place between counsel on both sides upon the facts of the case, and the law applicable to it; and ultimately it was decided to postpone the matter until Friday next, in order that the age of the girl might be clearly ascertain. If it be shown that she has attained the age--fourteen years--at which she is entitled to judge and act for herself in reference to going home or otherwise, or attending whatever place of worship she may choose, it is understood that must be left at liberty to follow her inclination, and she cannot be interfered with.--Northern Whig.


(Magistrates present:--S. R. Moorhead, Esq., William Murray, Esq., Edward M'Intosh, Esq., and Theophilus Clements, Esq.)

There were 90 cases on the books, none of which were of any public interest....


The cases which came before their Worships on Monday were very trifling....The Court rose early.


On the 7th inst., at Ballinskill, Connemara, the wife of Charles Palmer ARCHER, Esq., jun., of a son.

On the 13th of June at the Parsonage, Surry Hills, Sydney, N.S. Wales, the wife of the Rev. Hulton Smyth KING, incumbent of Surry Hills, of a son.

On the 6th inst., at Viscount Boyne's in Belgrave-square, the Katherine Hamilton RUSSELL, of a daughter.


On the 9th inst., at the church of the Immaculate Conception, Marlborough street, Dublin, by the Very Rev. Walter MURPHY, Alfonso CATALANO GONZAGA de DUCHI de CIRELLA de NAPOLLI, eldest son of the Duke de Cirella, of Naples, to Carotina CUARDICCI, eldest daughter of Peitro and Forunata GUARDICCI (sic), of Leghorne.

On the 4th inst, at St. James church , Exter, by the Rev. Richard ATKINSON, vicar of Cockersham, Lancashire, Frederick Robert GRANTHAM, Esq., Captain H. M's 16th Regiment, to Eliza, eldest daughter of Col. LOY, on the Retired List H.M. Madras Artillery.

On the 11th inst., in St. Peter's Church, Dublin, by the Venerable the Archdeacon of Meath, John HAMILTON, Wilder COSBY, of Abby Lodge, Castlenock, Esq., to Anna Betesford, youngest daughter of the late Right Hon. Edwd. STOPFORD, Lord Bishop of Meath.


On the 9th inst., at his residence, Anna Villa, Monkstown, Co. Dublin, Edward DOWLING, Esq., in his 78th year.

On the 9th inst., the Rev. J. W. BRISCOE, of Finnea, Co. Westmeath.

On the 7th inst., at Winton, Sandymount, aged 53, Mary Jane LABETT, relict of Late C. J. LABATT (sic), Esq., M.D., of this City (Dublin).

In several of the constabulary stations in Ulster, a number of men have given notice to leave. The only reason afforded is that of insufficient pay. During the past week two men left the Crossgar station for Australia, both of whom have been connected with the constabulary for many years.--Northern Standard.

DEATH OF A TEETOTALLER FROM DRINKING CORDIAL.--An inquest was held on Thursday last, at Halverstown, near Naas, before Robert S. HAYES, Esq., Coroner, on the body of a man named MORRIS, who, it appeared died from the effects produced by drinking a quantity of the compound known as "cordial." Dr. KELLETT, being examined, said congestion of the brain was produced by excessive drinking of cordial; that is contained a quantity of the worst spirits, and was more sickening and injurious than whiskey; the congestion of the brain terminated in paralysis, which was the immediate cause of death. The jury at once brought in a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony.--Leinster Express.

DREADFULLY SUDDEN DEATH.--On Friday evening a labouring man, named John LOFOUR, a native of Kildiman, in this county, was accidentally killed on the railway works at Charowrea, near this town, by a wagon carrying filling stuff, having passed over him while in a siding.--Tuam Herald.

August 20, 1859


THE KILBEGOAN ACELDAMA--This neighbourhood, already become so infamous as one of the strongholds of ribbonism, and so deeply stained with the blood of the unoffending victims, has just witnessed a fresh outrage, similar in character and hardly less atrocious than those by which it had been previously disgraced. On Saturday last, Thomas SCALLY, caretaker over the bog of Culnamier, the property of Ralph SMITH, Esq., acting in obedience to the instructions of his employer, summoned to the Kilbeggan Petty Sessions five men, of the families of RYAN and GREHAN, for having trespassed on his master's property, and taken therefore bog manure. The offenders were fined for the trespass, and it appears, actuated by a spirit of revenge, subsequently attacked Thomas SCALLY, and his brother, Michael, in the market of Kilbeggan. At 7 o'clock on the evening of the same day, the SCALLYS were peaceably returning to their homes, when they were overtaken by their assailants, who beat them in a most inhuman manner with heavy bludgeons and stones and inflicted on them many severe wounds, so as to put their lives in imminent danger. This outrage was perpetrated within a few yards of the spot where poor JESSOP was so foully murdered, and the Scallys would, in all probability, have experienced a like unhappy fate, had not the wife of one of their assailants intimated the approach of some police. Her alarm caused the ruffians to desist from their murderous work and fly (across the fields which, it is said Jessop's murderers passed in their retreat), leaving their victim almost lifeless.................Westmeath Guardian.


Before John H. Adams, Esq., M.P., and B. S. Adams, Esq., J.P.

Andrew CARAHER summoned James KWINDLAN for having recently assaulted him while he was proceeding quietly along the road, but Mr. SWANZY, of Castleblaney, who appeared for KWINDLAN, proved that CARAHER's summons, in this case, was only "a set off" to prevent a summons being served upon himself, for KWINDLAN preferred a charge of a most grievous assault against CARAHER and his accomplices, James KEENAN, Daniel and James CROSSIN, and James and Patrick DERMOTT.

He was summoned, and deposed that on the 24th July, he was making mud for Matthew M'CUSKEY, when the persons named in the indictment came to where he was and assaulted him without provocation on his part....Mr. Swanzy here observed that Kwindlan was most brutally assaulted, and that as there was evidently a preconcerted determination on the part of the criminals, the case was one for the Quarter Sessions.

The Bench according referred them to the next Quarter Sessions, and the prisoners were given into custody.

Charles M'COMB summoned Hugh M'DONNELL for desertion of service; he hired him in the usual way to service him, six months, and gave him 4l.....he would go any distance to prosecute him for his treachery.

The Bench gave a warrant for his apprehension.

TRAYNOR v. RUXTON and Others

This was a charge preferred by Bridget TRAYNOR against the defendants for using abusive and insulting language in reference to her "liege lord," who was unable to attend, though he lived only about twenty perches from the Court-house....Bridget RUXTON and her sister, Mary CONNOR, were the principal offenders. She would leave it to their own oath whether they made use of the language complained of....

Their Worships considered the defendants were in fault and sent them away, strongly reprimanding them for their misconduct and warning them that if repeated they would be severely punished.

Patrick LYNCH, who summoned Catherine CROSSIN and her boys on this day fortnight, appeared on this day to try the issue of his complaint against "the widow and her sons." He was much excited, and when sworn stated that a certain bank was in his possession these many years, but his resentment was still greater when Mr. GREY, Mr. ADAMS's bailiff, deposed that "the bank" in question was reserved for the use of such of Mr. Adams's tenants as he wanted it....He was therefore sent home.

Peter SMITH summoned Patt ROGERS for 8s., the amount of an appraiser's bill, for damage done by his cattle in oats.....The defence was insufficiency of ditches; but their Worships gave a decree for the entire sum claimed.

Francis DUFFY summoned Andrew M'ENTYRE on a charge of non-payment of wages, and illegal removal of a ditch....M'Intyre and he were joined ploughing last spring; that he was three days more with him than M'Intyre paid for, and that he was entitled to 10s. 6d.. M'Intyre (sic) stated that it was all spite; "an attempt to rob me,"....He further swore "by the contents of the book" that he did not owe a penny...Not believing all this, their Worships gave a decree for 10s. 6d.

Anne KEATING summoned John FITZSIMONS for 8s. wages. She was working sixteen days for hire and was promised 5d. per day;....Fitzsimons declined that she was entitled to any money; that she was not so many days with him, but he was, however, decreed for 8s.

Peter M'IREW, a little boy about 15 years, summoned John IRWIN for having threatened to kill him, and for having beaten and otherwise ill-used him.....John IRWIN in his defence stated that the little boy was very unmindful of the cattle; that he made a habit of riding his horses....he'd do nothing that he wanted him...Their Worships told the boy he must go and put in his time and afterwards serve for the days he was absent. The poor little boy was crying most bitterly, and left the Court-house, exclaiming as he went along that they'd kill him if he'd go back to them.

Sub-Constable Michael CLARKE, of the Shercock Station, brought up Anne HEISLIP charged with having on the previous day stolen a part of cloth shoes from Mrs. LYNCH, of Shercock. With much difficulty, Mrs. Lynch was prevailed upon to take the book, being unwilling to prosecute the prisoner, who is an interesting young woman, about 20 years. After the Sub-Constable had related the circumstances attending his arrest of the prisoner, Mrs. Lynch identified the shoes as her own, but begged that their Worships would forgive her as it might be the first offence. It was shown, however, that the Assistant Barrister sentenced her to 3 months for larceny at the two session in Bailieborough in December last.....she was accordingly sent for three months to imprisonment.

Essy GRIFFITH, a little girl about 13 years, charged John SHARPE with having committed an indecent assault upon her. She was sworn, and said that about 3 o'clock in the morning of the 9th instant he came to her bed and attempted a violation of her three times; she slept in the kitchen, and defendant came home from a wake at the time; she did not make any noise for he threatened her with instant death if she would; she did not sleep after, but ran to her mother as soon as the morning came; her life she thought was in danger if she made any noise, but she repulsed defendant each time he came to her....The complainant stated afterwards that Mrs.Sharpe promised to buy her clothes if she'd be consequence of the extreme youth of the girl their Worships dismissed the case.


Magistrates present:--Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P., Chairman; William Babington, Esq., J.P.; N. Montgomery, Esq., J.P.; A. Carden, Esq., J.P.; and W. M. Hickson, Esq., R.M.

Robert TUBMAN, of Drumbo, summoned Owen M'CABE, for having allowed his ass to trespass on complainant's pasturage, and, on being sworn, stated that the mearing fence was in good order, and that he demanded trespass money of defendant.

Defendant's son appeared for his father, and state that the ass belonged to him...the farm also belonged to him; his father is an old man, and "hard of hearing".

TUBMAN denied this, but their Worships dismissed the case.

Michael SMITH summoned William BRAVENDAR for having allowed one cow on 27th July, and two cows on the 9th of August, to trespass on his land. Defendant was fined 1s and costs for the first trespass....The order was afterwards changed, and the case was postponed generally to next court day.

John M'CANN, of Cavan, summoned Francis CARROLL for trespass committed by his ass and cow upon complainant's land.

Defendant said he was willing to pay anything that was fair, but complainant demanded 5s for the trespass, which he considered too large a sum. The Bench imposed a fine of 6d. and costs.

Edward St. GEORGE summoned William BULLOCk for having unlawfully detained a pair of boots, the property of complainant.

It appeared that St. GEORGE (a servant to Mr. Montgomery) had given BULLOCK, who is a shoemaker, the boots to repair; but though he sent several times for them, he could not get them from him, and the excuse given by defendant was that his mother had pledged the boots.

BULLOCK pleaded that he had to go into the Militia...and gave the boots to his father to repair; they had been done for a considerable time, and were ready for complainant, who could have got them at any time he sent the money; they were pawned when defendant could wait for his money no longer.

Chairman--Are you aware that you are liable to a fine of 40s. for pawning the man's boots?.....The Chairman told Bullock that he acted wrongly in both instances--first by detaining the boots, and secondly by illegally pawning them, for which the Court would order him to pay complainant 5s. for his loss of time, and 2s. 6d., the cost of court.

Miss MURPHY was summoned for allowing her pig to wandered on the streets.

John James M'CABE was summoned for the same offence.

The Bench imposed a fine of 6d. and costs in both cases.

Constable Lawrence SHIELS charged a man named James REILLY with having violently assaulted him. Constable SHIELS being sworn, stated that he arrested REILLY, who is a noted character for drunkenness; his conduct was must violent; he bit complainant's hand and kicked him several times.

The prisoner pleaded that the bad whiskey he is in the habit of drinking sets him mad...The Bench declined to throw all the blame on the whiskey as Mr. Reilly need not drink it....He was known to be a most depraved and ruffianly character....They would therefore order that he be bound over to keep the peace for twelve months--..Complainant expressed a firm resolve to deprive Cavan of his presence.

The Chairman--That's your own affair; but if you're in town on Monday and have not the bail, you'll be sent to prison.

A select party of denizens of Paradise-row preferred complaints against each other....After hearing the case...the Bench dismissed all the cases except that against a medical gentleman named RICHARDSON, who was requested to study homeopathy for a week in the Farnham street College. At the behest of Mrs. RICHARDSON, however, a fee of 5s. was accepted, and he was permitted to resume his "practice" in the "Row."

The Court then rose.

August 27, 1859

Before W. M. Hickson, Esq., R.M.

This was an action brought to recover compensation for injury done by Mr. FEGAN to a paling, the property of complainant.

Mr. M'GAURAN, who appeared for Mr. MATTHEWS in this case, stated the leading facts, and that Mr. MATTHEWS at the request of Mr. FEGAN, had consented to a postponement of the case on last Monday, on condition that he should be allowed his costs, with which condition the Bench complied. Mr. TULLY, on behalf of Mr. FEGAN, objected to paying Mr. MATTHEWS' costs as Mr. FEGAN was not present on that day. The Bench overruled the objection, and Mr. Matthews received his costs.

Mr. Matthews was then examined, and deposed that in February last he took from Mr. KENNY (the agent or representative of Sir Edward TIERNY) the house and out-offices and which the late Mr. William BENSON was tenant. The plot of ground in dispute between him and Mr. Fegan was held by Mr. Benson. He got a paling put up in exactly the same place that the former occupier had a paling in, which paling was destroyed and carried away as firewood by the parties living in the lane....Mr. Matthews was cross-examined by Mr. Tully, and stated that he did not ask Mr. Fegan's permission to put up the paling, but was told by a blacksmith, a tenant of Mr. Fegan's, that he was putting the paling too far, and on Mr. Fegan's ground.......

Mr. Matthews was then recalled and question as to the amount of damage done to the paling. Mr. Matthews said he believed about 5s. The Bench said Mr. Matthews might consent to accept a nominal sum. Mr. M'Gauran said his client was willing to do so. The Bench then imposed a fine of 6d., and 1s. 6d. compensation.


Bridget GALLIGAN summoned Phil BOYLAN for wilfully breaking a metal pot, her property.

It appeared that Mrs. GALLIGAN is owner of a few hens, four of which lately trespassed on defendant's ground. Defendant has a dog, which, according to complainant's statement, he has educated to kill hens, and displays the rearing he got by occasionally attacking "with intent to kill," the feathered favourites of Mrs. G. On occasion of the trespass alluded to, defendant remonstrating with him, used abusive and "aggravating" language towards. To avoid his evil tongue she went into her house, and a short time after went out with the pot in her hands full of suds. She was emptying the suds into a little shough near her house, when her gallant neighbour came up and said he would not allow her to do so. He then caught hold of the pot and broke it...

BOYLAN, in his defence, said the pot was an old one, not worth a "thraneen;"....His Worship ordered Mr. Boylan to pay complainant 2s. and 6d. costs...and dismissed the complaint of trespass preferred by him.

John TIMON summoned Patrick FITZPATRICK for allowing two of his cattle, on the 8th July, and twelve on the 1st inst., to trespass on his oats.

TIMON did not appear, but his wife proved the trespass, and his Worship gave a decree for 14s.

Elizabeth REILLY summoned her master, Owen CUSACK, for half-a-year's wages; but, as she had left his employment without sufficient cause, his worship ordered her to return to her work, and be a good girl.

John BRADY summoned Michael BRADY for having assaulted him on the last fair night, in the Main-street of this town.

It appeared that the complainant--a country "boy" of not very bright appearance--was going home on the night in question, when he was attacked by three boys, one of whom was the defendant, who works on Mr. FAY's tobacco-loft, and whose only excuse was that the was drunk, and did not remember anything about the matter.

His Worship sentenced him to 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour, but afterwards commuted the punishment to a fine of 5s. and costs.


Thomas KENNEDY summoned _____WALSH for wages due to him. WALSH had a cross summons against KENNEDY for having unlawfully left his employment.

Mr. M'GAURAN, who appeared for KENNEDY, said his client had only got the summons in the cross-case this day, but he was willing that it should be heard.

KENNEDY, on being sworn, stated that he was employed by WALSH in May last, and was to remain with him until November next, and to receive £2 17s 6d. for his services during that period. He, however, left his employment on the 17th in consequence of not being able to endure starvation any longer....The defendant denied Kennedy's statement, and said though he got porridge in the mornings he used to get tea after it.

Mr. M'Gauran--Tea! Why, man, the teeth would drop out of your head if you SAW tea.
Defendant--He used to get tea twice a day.
Mr. M'Gauran--I suppose when the ladies had their share of the pot?
Defendant--Of course, he did not get the first of it.
Mr. M'Gauran--Never fear, he didn't
WALSH then proceeded to state that KENNEDY was very well treated by him....

His Worship said he was of opinion the man had not been properly fed, and gave an order for his wages. He dismissed the charge against him for leaving Walsh's employment.


In this case Mr. Charles MAGUIRE, of Cavan, opposed the application of Mr. BRADY, a road contractor to get an order to open a quarry on his land for the purpose of getting stones to complete his contract, on the ground that he had a hagyard on the land indicated.

Mr. M'Gauran appeared for Mr. Brady, and Mr. Tully for Mr. Maguire; and the Bench after a patient hearing, granted the order.

Patrick M'GUIRE made an affidavit relative to the murder of a pony, his property, by some malicious person, in the neighbourhood of this town.

It was within a few minutes of five o'clock when all the cases were dispose of.


WILLIAM MURRAY, Esq., Presiding

The other justices present were--Colonel Theophilus Clements, S. R. Moorhead, Edward M'Intosh, and John Veevers, R.M., Esqrs


Head-Constable HARRISON v. Thomas M'CABE and Others

The prosecution in this case arose out of a Ribbon procession, which took place in the vicinity of Cootehill on the 1st of August, and noticed in a recent number of the CAVAN OBSERVER, and from the nature of the case it excited considerable interest. The prosecution was brought under the illegal processions act, 13 and 14 Vic., cap. 2, the charge being that "On the night of the 1st August the defendants assembled in a tumultuous manner, and with flags and music, formed an illegal procession, and marched along the public road, playing party tunes, and with noise and screeching did disturb and annoy the inhabitants of the locality, whereby the public peace was endangered."

Mr. Edward M'Gauran defended the accused.

The prosecution was proved by seven respectable witnesses, who were ably examined by Head-Constable HARRISON in support of the charge which he brought forward.

Mr. M'Gauran, with much ability, addressed the Bench on behalf of his clients, but called no witnesses for the defence.

At the termination of Mr. M'Gauran's address their Worships retired to consider their decision, and after considerable deliberation,

The Chairman announced the decision of the Court. He said the case was not considered to be a very serious one, considering that the neighbourhood of Cootehill was in a very peaceable condition, and therefore the Bench had decided on dealing summarily with the matter. They acquitted all the parties identified as being of the procession, except four, viz.:--Thomas M'CABE, Owen M'CABE, Thomas LEARY, and Charles REILLY. These the Court sentenced to pay a fine of 2s. 6d., with costs, at the same time cautioning them against a repetition of the offence.

The Court was crowded during hearing of the case.


Before John Veevers, Esq., R.M.

Biddy M'GOVERN v. Henry GIBSON

This was the first case of any interest. The plaintiff was a servant girl in the employment of Mr. GIBSON, and as she made a charge in the summons, to the effect that her master had hidden her clothes, and kept her from going to mass for the purpose, or with the intention, of compelling her to go to a revival meeting, the interest taken in the matter was very considerable.

Biddy M'GOVERN, on being sworn, stated that Mr. GIBSON's service was to her far from agreeable; that she was badly fed, and over-wrought; that on many occasions she feared she would have to leave the service; and that on Sunday the 14th inst., things came to a climax by Mrs. GIBSON permitting her clothes to be put out of her reach, that she might not go to mass, &c., telling her that "it was full time she should come out of darkness, and commence to serve God aright.."

On being cross-examined by Mr. Gibson, the girl upset many of her direct statements as to the hard work and dietary, and was shortly unable to prove that she had been asked by any member of the family to attend a revival meeting against her will.

Mr. Gibson then entered more fully into his defence. He asserted that all his servants, be they Roman Catholic or Protestant, were permitted to attend their respective places of worship whenever such was practicable; but that in this instance, he could not permit her to go, as he had no one else to leave in charge of sick cattle, that had just been brought to him from his stock-farm. Some of his servants were already gone to chapel, and he, and all his family were just in readiness to go out to a revival meeting, so that what could he do, when she had refused to stay, but leave her clothes hidden from her?

His Worship--But what about the language used by Mrs. Gibson?

Plaintiff--Yes, your Worship, she told me I was long enough in darkness, and that it was time I would turn to God.

Mr. Gibson--I am of opinion she never said so. I don't think she did.

His Worship--Mr. Gibson, as you do not prove that the language was not used, I am to believe, on the evidence of this girl, that it was; but as the girl has never left her place, and is still continuing in her service I dismiss the case, with a hope that Mrs. Gibson will say nothing to hurt the religious feelings of her servants....

Alexander SHAW v. Rev. W. SCOTT

This was a wages case. Plaintiff alleged that he had been employed by Mr. SCOTT, curate of Killinkere, for 28 days at 10d. per day, and had gotten but 6s. paid him as yet.

Mr. SCOTT appeared, and stated that at the time he was getting a parish school-house built, and he wrote to the Rev. Sneyde TAYLOR, of Mullagh, to send him a boy to assist in drawing water. That he entered into no contract with the lad, but left all in the hands of Dr. TAYLOR, Rector of the parish, in whose service this lad was and is now.

His Worship (to Plaintiff)--In whose employ are you now?
Plaintiff--Dr. Taylor's.
His Worship--Where are you fed?
Plaintiff--At the Glebe.
His Worship--What wages have you?
Plaintiff--30s. a half-year.
His Worship--And why did you summon Mr. Scott
Plaintiff--Because he said he would pay me either 10d. or 1s. a day, for working at the house.
Mr. Scott--I said I would pay 10d. for the three days you were carrying slates, and instead of 2s.6d. you got 6s. from me.

His Worship (to plaintiff)--You may go home. I will give you no decree.


This was a dispute about the site of a school-house, that no one could properly understand, both parties belonging to Monaghanoose.

Mr. BRADY teaches school in a little house in the corner of Mr. CARROL's field. Mr. Carrol wanted to have the window shutters hung on the inside of the school-house windows, so that Mr. Brady or his pupils might have no occasion to enter into his field behind the house.

After many verbal descriptions of the premises had been given, his Worship called on the Clerk for a plan on paper, of the house and grounds. The Clerk, who has for a number of years, left off doing anything in an artistic way, handed over the paper and the pen to the schoolmaster, and here commenced a piece of sketching worthy of a place among the most curious pieces of "Punch."

The master drew out rhomobuses, lines, and rectangles, while Mr. Carrol kept looking on, shouting out by way of correction, when the pen happened to run a little out of the proper course.

Some lucky fellow mentioned just here that "Father Matt," had settled a case of this sort, between these parties before, his Worship at once adjourned the case until they should have time to apply to the Rev. M. M'QUAIDE.

Francis CLARKE v. William FINLAY

Francis CLARKE, a young man, with a plaster or two on his head, appeared to prosecute Mr. William FINLAY, for beating him in the town of Bailieborough on Monday, the 15th instant.

Mr. FINLAY is known in Bailieborough for the last thirteen or fourteen years to be a quiet, sober, inoffensive man and it was easy to see that he had with him the sympathy of the court.

Mr. MAHAFFY, who was retained for the defence, made a very able statement, and showed that Finlay was minding his business in Mr. SIMPSON's meal store, when Clarke came in and picked a quarrel; but as it seemed to be the revival of an old feud, about which words and blows had been once before exchanged, his Worship bound both parties over to keep the peace for 12 months.

The Court then adjourned.


August 25, at Belturbet, in the eighth year of his age, James, the eldest and beloved son of John ARMSTRONG, Esq.


On the 23rd instant, in Monea Church, by the Rev. Loftus G. READE, Mr. James JOHNSTON, merchant, Enniskillen, to Maria, eldest daughter of Mr. J. DOW, of Ely Lodge.

On the 19th instant in Tempo Church, by the Rev. W. H. BRADSHAW, Mr. William ARMSTRONG, Druggist, Enniskillen, to Emily Catherine, only daughter of the late John PARKINSTON, Esq., Mountmelick, and niece of Henry PARKINSON, Esq., Trim, co. Meath.

INQUEST--An inquest was held in the County Gaol on yesterday, before W. POLLOCK, Esq., one of the Coroners for this county, and a respectable jury, on the body of a woman, named Susan M'INTOSH, aged twenty-six years. From the medical testimony, it appeared that the woman died of diarrhea, and a verdict to that effect was returned by the jury.

DEATH OF JOHN KELLY, THE INFORMER--Yesterday, this individual, whose performances the public of Belfast have become pretty well acquainted with since the 1st of December last, died of consumption, at his parents' residence off Cormac-street, Belfast. The disease first developed itself when he occupied a cell in gaol.

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.