Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan

January 7, 1860

A woman named Elizabeth REID died at Ballyleany, near Richhill on the 25th ult, at the advanced age of 105 years, leaving an offspring of forty grand children, and about 100 great grand children. She had good health to the last few days. Her end was in peace.


On the 3rd instant, the wife of Mr. Walker Elliott PATTERSON, of Enniskillen, merchant, of a son.

At Gola, on the 23rd December, the wife of Mr. Baptist FORD, of a daughter.


On the 30th Dec., at Enniskillen, Alice Margaret, aged three years and nine months, the youngest daughter of Archibald COLLUM, Esq.

On Saturday, at Henry-street, Enniskillen, William, aged 21, eldest son of the late Mr. J. CREDEN.

At Derrygonnelly, on 29th Dec., at the house of her son-in-law, Mr. Duke PARKE, Mrs. Catherine ARMSTRONG, relict of the late Mr. Christopher ARMSTRONG, of Manorhamilton, aged 81 years.


The January Quarter Sessions for this division of the county commenced on Monday, before P. Murphy, Esq., Q.C., Chairman of the County of Cavan.

The following magistrates occupied seats on the bench:--W. Tatlow, T. Thompson, A. Carden, D. F. Jones, N. Montgomery, _______Venables, T. F. Knipe, W. Babington, J. Storey, W. M. Hickson, Esqrs., &c., &c.

There was a good attendance of the Grand Jury, who were sworn shortly after his Worship entered court.

The applications for spirit licenses (which were numerous) were then disposed of. There was no opposition in the insolvent cases.

Mr. B. Armstrong, the Crown Solicitor, was in attendance.

The following is the Crown business:--

Daniel BRODERICK was indicted for having on the 13th of November, 1859, at Cavan, assaulted one Daniel M'GOVERN, and placed him in bodily fear; also with having stolen two sovereigns, in gold, and a pound (illegible) from the person of said Daniel M'GOVERN, without his will or consent; and also with stabbing and cutting the said Daniel M'GOVERN; and Thomas WILLIS and Patrick M'GOVERN were charged with having aided and abetted Daniel BRODERICK in the commission of the said robbery.

Mr. B. Armstrong. Messrs. S. Knipe and John Armstrong appeared for the prisoners.

The particulars of this case appeared in a former number of this paper. The prisoners were all found guilty.

Former convictions were proved against M'GOVERN and BRODERICK, and they were both sentenced to penal servitude for nine years. WILLIS to four years.

Charles M'IVIE was charged with having, at Cavan, on the 16th November, assaulted Patrick M'GOVERN, so as to inflict serious bodily harm upon him; in a second count he was charged with a common assault. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. John Armstrong.

He was found guilty on the second count, and only received a few hours' imprisonment.

John COSGROVE and Thomas REYNOLDS were charged with a common assault on James M'CAFFREY, at Cavan, on the 12th November. This case was also reported previously. They were acquitted.

Peter FITSIMONS was indicted for having, at Arvagh, in the county of Cavan, on the 23rd of December feloneously stolen from the person of Michael DONOHOE, a pocket book, value 1s, and 26l.

Michael DONOHOE sworn--Lives in the County of Longford; was in Arvagh on the 23rd of December, which was the fair day; went in with a friend to LYNCH's public house; was standing at the counter when the prisoner thrust his hand into my breast pocket, between my shirt and waistcoat; caught him by the back of the neck, but his handkerchief came away with me...I missed my money immediately after the prisoner pulled out his hand....

Anne HAGGIN was attending the customers at Lynch's that night; the money was found by her after the arrest of the prisoner; got the money on the floor and asked the persons in the shop if any of them had lost it; gave the money to the Head Constable...Robert FORBES deposed he was in company with DONOHOE, the prosecutor, in Lynch's public house....distinctly saw the prisoner put his hand into Donohoe's pocket...

Court--Has the prisoner any engaged for him?

Orusiber--No, your honour.

Court--Well, you can ask the witnesses any questions you please.

The prisoner then closely cross-examined the prosecutor and FORBES as to how it came that, if he took the money, he could by any possibility drop it without any one seeing him, &c....

The case for the prosecution then closed. The jury, without any delay, returned a verdict of guilty. It was proved that the prisoner had been sentenced to four months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for a felony, on the 16th of October, 1857, at Quarter Sessions.

Court--Peter FITZSIMONS, you appear to be a very hardened offender.

Prisoner--Well, your honour, I have nothing about this, if I was to be hung for it.

Court--Well, you're not to be hung for it; but you are to be sentenced to penal servitude for four years.

The Prisoner was then removed.

Hugh SMITH, Michael SMITH, Andrew SMITH, and Lawrence SMITH were indicted for having, on the 25th November, at Dresternan, in the county of Cavan, assembled with others, and made a riot. The prisoners pleaded not guilty.

Honora FOY deposed that she had a house built in Dresternan, and the neighbours got up a "join" for tea at the house, in order to help her; between seven and eight o'clock on the night of the occurrence, while the neighbours were enjoying themselves a crowd came shouting to the house, crying they would "be a terror to the beggars of Dresternan;" they smashed the windows, broke the door, threw stones at the window, and tore off some of the thatch; knows no reason for their doing so, except that SMITH, who was brother to some of the prisoners, lost his wife in a quarrel in the townland.

Cross-examined--Charles FOY is my brother; there were a great many in the house; dancing went on as brisk as ever the occurrence; there was no whiskey drinking.

John BOYLE deposed that he had got a ticket for the tea party, and was present at the time the prisoners came to the house.....

The prisoners then pleaded guilty, and were each bound over in their own recognizances in the sum of 10l. to keep the peace for seven years to all her Majesty's subjects, and in particular to Honora FOY. They were then discharged.

Patrick SMITH, James SMITH, Elizabeth SMITH, and Thomas M'CABE were indicted for having, on the 29th of November, 1859, been guilty of a riot, and with having assaulted James MONAHAN and Bridget MONAHAN.

Mr. B. Armstrong stated the case. He said--Gentlemen of the Jury, it may, in this case, assist you in your decision if I should state the facts of the case. James MONAHAN, the principal prosecutor, is son-in-law of Patt SMITH. On his marriage, in 1846, with SMITH's daughter, he got possession of a portion of SMITH's land, and in 1847 he obtained the remainder. Since then he has quiet possession of the land up to the day in question, when the prisoners sought to throw him out by an ejectment on the title. Now, gentlemen, there are various means provided by the law for recovering possession of lands or other property--ejectments for non-payment of rent, ejectments on the title, &c., but our law permits no man to take the law into their own hands. It will be shown to you that on the day in question, Patt SMITH and his son James SMITH, came to MONAHAN's house, and went through some form of giving possession of Monahan's land--'by sod and twig'--to M'CABE, who is son-in-law to Patt SMITH. It will be shown that they attempted to turn Monahan out of his house, on the strength of the form of giving possession.

Monahan told them that if they wanted the land they should try the law for it, to which they replied that he should try the law.....James Monahan examined...Saw the prisoners go through a form of taking possession of his land.......they came to the door and told him he should turn out; told them the law was open to them, and they could try it if they wished; Patt Smith replied, "No, but, you'll have to try it," Bessy Smith then caught hold of him and said "out you'll go;" she dragged him out of the door, and the other two men dragged his wife; Bessy lifted a large stone, and cut his wife on the back of the head, the two men struck him with their staffs; had three or four ribs broken; his wife had to go to a doctor; she had a miscarriage that night...Monahan's wife corroborated.

Dr. M'NEES, a Presbyterian, took the declaration appointed for members of that persuasion, and stated that Monahan's wife came to him on the 24th of November; she had a wound on the head, and some bruises; she told him that she had a premature delivery on the night previous, and on examination he found sufficient corroboration of her statement; the cut in her head was an inch in length.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knipe (who appeared for the prisoners)--Bessy SMITH also came to me; she had several scratches on her face that they were not serious. I saw Monahan's wife eight days afterwards, and she was then ill. The miscarriage might proceed from excitement.

Monahan was recalled, and cross examined by Mr. Knipe and also by the court.

Mr. Knipe--On your oath, did Pat Smith ever give up possession of this house. He did.

Mr. Knipe--On your oath didn't he live and sleep in that house for the last forty years? Wasn't he in it, and about his business, on the morning of this terrible assault, and didn't you prevent him going into his own house?

Monahan shuffled these questions for a long time, and would give no direct answer, until his Worship told he he would send him to jail if he did not answer the questions. When pressed thus, he admitted that his father-in-law had resided in the house, and was living in the house on the morning the assault was committed, and since, and that he prevented him of going into the house.

Court--Go home, sir. You brought it all on yourself. The Court then directed the jury to return a verdict of acquitted. They did so, and the prisoners were discharged.

Laurence SMITH was indicted for having, on the 26th of October, at Stradone, in the county of Cavan, stolen one bank note, value 1l., the monies of Owen FARRELLY. The prisoner pleaded not guilty.....

His Worship charged the jury, and directed their attention to the facts of the case. It was acknowledged by FARRELLY that money was due by him to SMITH, though there was some difference as to the amount. If SMITH took this note in liquidation of the debt, it would, of course, alter the charge of robbery; but this was not urged for the prisoner. He boldly contended that the money was his own, and when charged with the robbery, boldly challenged FARRELLY to show how he could identify the note. If they considered that the prisoner stole the note, they would, of course, find him guilty; if they had any reasonable doubt, they would acquit the prisoner, whose future prospects depended upon their verdict. The other supposition thrown out--that FARRELLY had marked the half-note himself--involved a very serious charge against FARRELLY. It would be for them to decide this. His Worship also commented on the strange fact that FARRELLY, who alleged that he had entertained some suspicion of SMITH, should leave his cash-box open in his way, and the fact that SMITH had not tried to escape, and the improbability of a man feeling a half note in a letter, &c.

A juror asked FARRELLY why he did not open the other letter as well as the one the note was in?

FARRELLY hesitated, and said he did not know--that he felt nothing in it.

After some further questions the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

SMITH (who is a respectable-looking young man) asked if FARRELLY should not pay him his wages. His Worship said that, of course, his wages should be paid to him, and directed the half note and his letters be returned to him.

Margaret KELLY pleaded guilty to a charge of having, at Cavan, on the 18th of October, stolen a piece of calico, the property of Mr. HOPKINS. Four months from date of committal.

Owen BRADY and John LYNCH were found guilty on two charges of cattle stealing, and sentenced the former to four years' penal servitude, and the latter to four months' imprisonment.

There was a charge of perjury against a man named LEE, but it was not gone into.

There was a very large amount of Civil business, and the Court sat until a late hour on Wednesday evening, when the Sessions closed. The following case was heard, "inter alia," on Wednesday:--

James BURNS, of Corglass v. Patrick SHEENAN and Margaret SHEENAN

This was an action for 6l., loss and damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of wounds, bruises, and bites inflicted by defendants, at Drummany, on the 1st of November.

The plaintiff, a tall gan(illegible)-looking young man, was called up, and a most amusing dialogue took place between him and his Worship. Plaintiff, previous to commencing his tale of woe, placed his hands as a support to his chin, but his Worship informed him that he always distrusted parties addicted to such a habit.

Plaintiff then proceeded--Well, your honour, on the day of the "join" I was coming from my uncle MURRY's and I was passing the house, where they were in, and REILLY axed me had I a pipe, an' I said I had, an' I went in, an' I gave 'em a smoke, and Patt SHEENAN said to me--says he, 'Well, here's some thick-witted people in the world,' says I 'Not the least,' says he. Well, says I, do you mean anyone here? 'No,' says he, "I don't.' Well, says I, maybe you mean my uncle MURRY. 'I do,' say he. Well, says I, I don't think you have any right to even the like o' that to my uncle MURTY (sic). 'Well,' says he, 'I think he might let his daughters come to the join as well as other girls,' Well, say I, that was his own business. 'Well,' says he, 'he wants to put his daughters above other people.'

Court--He thought your uncle had too much family pride.

Plaintiff--That was it, your honour.

Mr. Armstrong--Oh, your Worship, BURNS is a very good name--in Scotland, at least.

Mr. Knipe--Well, I hope no one here is claiming relationship with the poet.

Court (to plaintiff)--Well, what happened after your uncle MURTY?....

Plaintiff then proceeded, in the same roundabout manner, to describe the gradual progress of the quarrel between himself and the critic of his uncle MURTY, from which it appeared that words begat blows, and that SHEENAN decided the combat in his own favour by nearly biting the thumb off plaintiff...

Dr. TEEVAN deposed that plaintiff came to him some days after the alleged assault. Plaintiff's thumb was greatly lacerated....

Patt REILLY deposed that he saw plaintiff and defendant arguing--plaintiff was the first to rise from his seat, and challenged defendant. Did not see defendant bite plaintiff's thumb, as they were both turned out of the house. Did not see Mrs. SHEENAN beat plaintiff.

Patt SHEENAN, the defendant, deposed that herself (sic) and plaintiff had some words, that plaintiff, in the course of the scuffle, shoved his thumb into his (defendant's) mouth, that he gave said thumb, while in his mouth, a good 'crish' but only did for fear BURNS would choke him; defendant's mother, when she came to the spot, gave stroke about, and struck defendant as often as BURNS.

Court--It's a pity she didn't begin sooner. Go down,, sir--be off. Let a policeman turn that dirty, unmanly savage out of court. Turn him out--he's not fit to be amongst men.

He was accordingly turned out of court, and a decree for the sum claimed, with costs, was given--to be paid by the mother (who was examined) and her hopeful son.

BELFAST BANK--PROMOTIONS--In consequence of the resignation, from 1st of May next, of the office of Inspector of the Belfast Bank Branches by Mr. T. M. MORROW, who has most creditably and zealously filled that important position for some years, Mr. N. GREER, manager of Monaghan Branch, has been promoted to the inspectorship, and it stated Mr. W. REID accountant of the Derry Branch, has been chosen to succeed Mr. GREER in Monaghan....BELFAST NEWS LETTER.

On Monday the Rev. Mr. M'KEE united in the bonds of wedlock, in Collegeland Chapel, near Charlemont, Mr. William PASMER, of Edenderry, and Anne, daughter of Mr. James M'ALINDEN, of Slash, both in this county. The groom's age is 85, while the bride is only 28 years. The people of this district made merry on the occasion and several bonfires were lighted--ARMAGH GUARDIAN.

January 14, 1860


The Quarter Sessions of this district were held on the 6th, by P. M. Murphy, Esq., Q.C., Chairman of the County.

The Crown business did not occupy much time. There were a few convictions for acts of larceny and pick-pocketing. The most interesting case was that of BRADY v. MALONE and others, the particulars of which have already appeared in the OBSERVER.

Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Mahaffy defended the prisoners.

Mr. Armstrong described with much minuteness and ability the peculiar nature of the assault which he said was most barbarous and savage, and committed without the least provocation while the prosecutors were minding their business.

The prosecutors, Thomas BRADY and Maryanne BRADY, deposed to all the facts as stated in the report alluded to.

Mr. Mahaffy addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners in a speech of great length and unrelenting severity against the prosecutors; but his Worship told the jury not to be influenced by his observations which were made in direct opposition to the evidence adduced.

The jury returned a verdict of "guilty" against the MALONES and accordingly his Worship sentenced them, Michael MALONE, to six, and Patrick MALONE, to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

John CURRY v. Charles DOHERTY

This action was brought to obtain 1l. 6s. wages.

John CURRY sworn--I am a carpenter; made six tables and eight forms for defendant; never was paid; lodged in his house; had diet and lodging taken under one; did the work a long time ago; expected to be paid before now.

Charles DOHERTY sworn--Complainant did all he stated, but never was to get any money, as I was giving him free lodging at the time; it is about four years since he did the work; my wife can prove that he was paying nothing for the lodging, and was to get no money for the work.

Mary DOHERTY deposed that he was two years and upwards in their house without paying any lodging, and he never said until now that he'd charge for the work done. Dismissed without costs.

Patrick GAHAN v. Hugh MULDOON

This action was to recover 25l., money lent to defendant's wife; he lent it more than a year ago; it was prior to the marriage of defendant's daughter that his wife came to borrow the money; the defendant always promised to pay the money but never did so; he also promised him the grazing of a cow as interest for the money if he'd allow time; he never paid his addresses to defendant's daughter, for he knew she would not take him....

Hugh MULDOON was sworn--He never knew anything of it till it was due half a year; he always said he did not wish to see plaintiff wronged; but he did not wish to pay him; it was the wife got the money, and as it was put to the use of his daughter, now doing for herself in Virginia, he did not think himself entitled to pay it; it was Mr. GRAHAM got the license for my daughter; it was in my son's name it was got; he came last Wednesday pretending he wanted a tailor; we spoke over the head of the money....I believe he came with the money to my daughter without anyone asking it.

Here he was contradicted by plaintiff, who affirmed that he paid the money into Mrs. MULDOON's own hands....

His Worship thought MULDOON's plea for refusing to pay the money was unjust, and said he'd postpone the case till Cootehill Session, when he'd give a decree for it if not paid before that time.

James CAHILL v. Bernard ROGERS

This action was to obtain 5l., loss and damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of the death of a ram killed on the 22nd of November by defendant's ram, and was at a short distance when defendant's ram ran furiously into his field and killed his ram before he had time to save him; the loss he sustained thereby was very great;....

The defendant had no defence only that the ram was seriously affected with disease at the time his ram killed him, and he knew that he would have died had he been left to himself; he did admit that his ram helped God away with him, but he would not survive long at the time. Decree for 40s. and costs.


This action was for loss and damage sustained by CROSSIN on account of being cheated of potato ground, and also for being prevented to dig his potatoes by defendant.

Mr. M'INTYRE was the chief witness against DUFFY. CROSSIN, he said, was to get 4 ridges for 24 days' work; he gave the work, but DUFFY kept 8 perches and 1 yard off each of the ridges; he also prevented him to dig his potatoes, and the front came and 'killed them every one; he believed the loss to be about 3l., the sum for which the action was brought.

DUFFY said the 24 days were for half a rood of potato ground; he got it surveyed and it contained more than half a rood; he did not prevent CROSSIN to dig the potatoes. It was M'INTYRE caused the action.

His Worship dismissed the case.


Magistrates present:--Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P., Chairman; William Babington, Esq., J.P., and William Murray Hickson, Esq., J.P.

There were only a few cases for hearing, none of which were of much interest, with the exception of a complaint preferred by the Midland Great Western Railway Company against a carrier named Matthew JAMES, under the following circumstances:--Mr. WALLACE is the recognised carrier of the Midland Great Western Railway Company, who have a regular contract with him for forwarding goods, but the owners or consignees of goods are not compelled to employ him. The defendant, JAMES, was formerly in Mr. WALLACE's employment as float-driver but had been discharged. Since then he has purchased a horse and float, and turned carrier on his own account, conveying goods from the railway to the various parties in Cavan...On the day stated in the summons he went as usual to the Railway Station in this town, for the purpose of bringing any goods which might be there for the merchants or others who employ him. Seeing some articles there for Mr. M'CANN, of this town, he told the Porter that he would take them. The Porter refused to give any goods without a written order from the person to whom the goods belongs. JAMES insisted on his right to remove the goods, and endeavoured (according to evidence) to take a sack which the Porter had upon a truck.

The Company's Station master (who is also to some extent in Mr. Wallace's employment) then interfered and informed James that he could not get the goods without a written order--such being the invariable use of the Company. Upon which James left. The summons was brought against James for having trespassed on the company's premises, and interfered with their officers in the discharge of their duty...

Mr. M'GOVERN said that all the Midland Company wanted was to protect their premises and their servants, and show that they were not to be trespassed upon or interfered with. They did not want to punish the defendant, and were willing to withdraw the summons, if he apologised, and promised not to repeat the offence.

After some further conversation, the summons was withdrawn.

January 21, 1860


Magistrates present:--John H. Adams, Esq., J.P.; R. A. Minnett, Esq., J.P.; and B. Adams, J.P.

The hearing of the case of assault, postponed on this day fortnight, in which Charles CAHILL was plaintiff, and James FARRELLY, defendant, was resumed.

CAHILL being sworn, said, on the 25th December, gentlemen of this court, I was making merry Christmas with some friends I invited to my house. About nine or ten o'clock this boy came in unsent for; he struck myself, kicked my daughter, and 'bluddied' two other men that were in the house....

Bench--Have you any witness?

Plaintiff--Yes I have; Phillip GRAHAM are you there?

GRAHAM was sworn and said he was one of the two men that were 'bluddied' but he could not tell how he came to be 'bluddied,' only he knew FARRELLY came into the house and caused great disturbance; his wife was in the house too, and offered him a glass of 'hard stuff,' but he would not take it, he said, from such beggars; he was put out and misbehaved himself when outside.

Thomas M'CULLAGH, the other man that was 'bluddied,' was examined also, but he knew very little about the case, only he knew FARRELLY was wrong, for when he came in he ordered the song to be stopped; he made confusion and had to be put out.

FARRELLY said he went for his sister, who was another of the guests, and 'nodded' at her to come home, but CAHILL, his daughter, and son-in-law all fell foul on him, and he had a narrow escape; CAHILL was all in fault; he had witness to show that he was; but their Worships consulted a few minutes, and said that as CAHILL was troublesome their present decision would be that he go home, mind his business, and keep himself quiet.

Joseph CAMPBELL summoned the Rev. Mr. PARR for 10l. due to him as teacher of Corlea National School, of which defendant is the manager.

The plaintiff, who is a respectable-looking person, said he performed his duties, as a teacher, very faithfully and efficiently as he'd show from documents which he produced. He drew the attention of the Bench to the fact of his being appointed to teach in Corlea national school in '57 by the rev. defendant, and he continued to enjoy his situation without molestation down to May '59; the last installment of his salary which he received was given him on the 13th of April last; shortly after the rev. gentleman, who is manager of the school, expressed his wish that plaintiff should attend his place of worship; he declined to do so, as he was conscientiously opposed to the form of worship and religious principles of the Rev. Mr. PARR; the consequence of such refusal he found to be the anger and hatred of his manager, and accordingly on the 19th of May last he received from him a verbal dismissal from his office; he refused to comply with it, believing himself not justified in getting it; there is also an acting committee, recognised by Mr. PARR some years ago, in connexion with the school; and the teacher gave them general satisfaction; they still retained him in the school; Mr. PARR communicated with the inspector and Commissioner; but the plaintiff still performed the duties of teacher, and received a visit from the inspector, who, being satisfied with how he conducted the school, summoned him to an examination, and told him he'd be promoted only for Mr. PARR's interference, for he prevented him to receive the regular quarterly payment of his salary....Mr. PARR formally dismissed him in writing, but the committee, believing that he did so through spite, still kept him in the school. The case occupied a long time, and was finally postponed to await the evidence of Mr. ADAIR, the district inspector.

Owen MURIN summoned Patrick FINEGAN for deserting his service; he hired him on the 12th of December, and gave him 2l. 10s wages; he liked very well how the boy did while he stayed, but he had no just pretext for going away.

The defendant said he was obliged to go away, for that plaintiff was not feeding him right; he gave him "thin Indian meal stirabout" in the morning, and the milk he got to it was very bad too; he got bad potatoes to his dinner and thin milk to them....

The Bench here decided that the boy go back to his service and be properly fed, or they'd allow him his wages and liberty to quit MURIN's employment.

Hugh MARTIN summoned Charles CAROLAN for stealing a pair of trowsers. He had him hired as a servant, and gave him a pair of trowsers without any charge; when they were worn he gave him the loan of the pair that he now sought to recover; but he went away with them; they were worth 4s.

His mother appeared for him, and said that she knew they were not stolen; only he got them her son would not steal them; he was hired in Mr. Adams of Killan, and he could not attend the Bench, but she'd engage to get the trowsers if plaintiff insisted upon getting them.

The Bench decided that she must return them or be fined 3s. 6d. and costs of court.

Constable STEWART, of Shercock, brought up an old man named Patrick REILLY charged with being drunk and incapable on the public road.

He said he had taken a glass and "it flew to his head" and left him unable to walk; he was never taken for being drunk before; he was sure they would never get him drunk again, and he hoped they'd forgive him this time.

The Bench warned him to take care as the "spiell" was now broken; he must pay 2s. 6d. and costs.

Patt CARROLL summoned Edward LYNCH for selling him pigs that were not sound

When sworn, he said he was induced to buy them by LYNCH, who said "they were pigs that would do some poor man a good turn." He bought them at 33s. and brought them home, but when he gave them some oats to feed upon, they "hopped off the ground, fell on their backs, and were likely to kill themselves;"....CARROLL wanted the case to be left "to the saying of two men, but the "pigman" would not leave the case to them....

LYNCH was willing to submit to the decision of the Bench, but would not abide by that of any others.

Then Bench decided that he pay complainant the sum of 16s. 6d and costs.

Joseph LYNCH charged Bernard CONNOR, Thomas GILLON, and Peter LYNCH, with assaulting him in his own house, on the 2nd inst., since which time they were in custody. He was very lenient in the prosecution, considering the injuries received.

Joseph LYNCH sworn--When the three young men came in he though they wanted whiskey; his sister was in the kitchen, and he called to her to do so necessary business; Peter LYNCH got hold of him, and said he was the boy "could tip him out of the door;" he said he thought not, and gave him some strokes which caused him to fall; the others then attacked him and immediately he found himself bleeding; he did not know who it was that made him bleed; the doctor told him he was dangerously wounded, and had been cut by a sharp instrument....a fellow named Michael HAY was standing in the door and prevented his sister to get out.

Rose LYNCH was next examined--She was in the kitchen at the time her brother was attacked; Bernard CONNER pulled him down and the others attacked him...

The police who were in Shercock on the day of the assault were next examined, and proved to the condition of LYNCH when they came. The prisoners were all under the influence of liquor, but CONNER was so drunk that he should be arrested for it alone....

The Bench should in the present case prevent a repetition of this as they'd send them to gaol. CONNOR for two months, and LYNCH and GILLON for one month, all on hard labour.


Before William Babington, Esq., J.P., chairman; Andrew Carden, Esq., J.P.; Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., J.P.; and William Murray Hickson, Esq., R.M.

A young man named HIGHLAND summoned Miles RAIL for having assaulted him in the Main-street, of Cavan, on the 10th of January.

Complainant deposed that he was trying to induce his father to go home with him; his father was endeavoring to go into King's public house; RAIL came up to him and struck him on the head with a stick or whip; was knocked down by the blow; struck RAIL in return; had never seen or spoken to him, or given him any provocation previously.

RAIL--I own I did strike him, gentlemen, but I was drunk when I did it; I never was drunk before in my life;....

Sub-Inspector NAPIER--He was in for being drunk before, your Worships. I spoke to him, and remonstrated with him that day, but he would not go home.

Constable William CONN produced the stick with which complainant had been struck....

Chairman--Well, sir, you offer an excuse for your conduct, that you were drunk. You may think that's a very good excuse, but we do not--we consider it an aggravation of your offence. You have been fined already for being drunk, and for the assault you are to pay a fine of 5s., or a week's imprisonment in Cavan gaol.

Sub-Constable MAHONY summoned Peter GALLIGAN for allowing two pigs to wander on the public road. GALLIGAN said he had land on both sides of the road, and he supposed the pigs were only making their way across the road. Fined 6d. and costs.

Sub-Constable MAHONY summoned Anne GALLIGAN for the same offence. Defendant said her son was driving the pigs at the time. The boy, on being sworn, also stated that he was driving the pigs...On cross-examination by MAHONY, however, he varied somewhat in his testimony. The Chairman said that the magistrates were unanimous that the boy had been prompted by his mother to state that he was driving the pigs when met by MAHONY....In order to mark their sense of this very improper conduct, the Bench would inflict the utmost penalty--namely, 2s. and costs...

Margaret LYNCH, of Leiter, processed James REILLY, of Butlersbridge, for 10s., sum due for the service of a man and ass, and 4s. for diet and lodging.

Plaintiff stated that the ass hire was incurred by defendant for bringing in a load of timber from Cavan; defendant is a carpenter, and was working at the time for the parish priest (Rev. Charles O'REILLY).

Defendant stated that he gave her an order off the priest for 10s, ass hired and two days' lodging; spoke to her afterwards in Mr. FAY's, and she said the priest had promised to pay her.

Plaintiff said the priest told her, when she went for the order, that he had cleared his account with defendant and owed him nothing; so he refused to pay the order.....

The Chairman said the magistrates considered the defendant, and not the priest, was the person to whom plaintiff should look for her money...They would, therefore, give a decree for 10s. and costs.

There was a charge of assault preferred by John M'KERNAN against three men, named QUILLAN, BROWN, and MURPHY. The assault complained of was of a trifling nature, and M'KERNAN was not anxious to prosecute, but as the Deputy Governor of the gaol had received from the (illegible) communications showing that the parties had been convicted of felony on former occasions, and as it was thought other charges would come to light against them, the Magistrates adjourned the case.--M'KERNAN being bound over to prosecute. This being the last case, the court rose.


December 13, in St. Stephen's Church, Toronto, Canada West, by the Rev. J. H. M'COLLUM, A.M., Incumbent, brother of the bridegroom, assisted by the Rev. Dr. LETT, Incumbent of St. George's, Thomas M'COLLUM, Esq., Morpeth, C. W., to Mary Harriett, second daughter of the late James CUFF, Esq., J.P., and D.L., of Creagh, Ballinrobe, Co. Mayo, Ireland.

January 28, 1860

NARROW ESCAPE FROM DEATH--A farmer, named Robert M'SHANE, had a narrow escape from being shot on the night of Thursday last. The circumstances are as follows:--A man named J. KELLIE, a painter by trade, left Omagh a short time since, and took a small house and garden from Robert M'SHANE, at Galbally, about a mile and a half from the town. On the day in question M'SHANE, believing that KELLIE was about to run away from the premises, came into Omagh and procured a distress warrant, with which, accompanied by his brother, he proceeded to KELLIE's house at about 10:30 p.m. to make a seizure of the goods. An altercation ensued, when both parties produced pistols. In the scuffle M'SHANE received a ball in the mouth, which carried away two of his front teeth, and passing up the inside of the cheek, came out between the ear and the eye. An alarm was at once raised, and early in the night the police captured KELLIE, who had not left his own house; he was next day lodged in gaol on the charge of shooting at M'SHANE. M'SHANE was brought to the infirmary, when it was found that the wound was not of a dangerous nature.--TYRONE CONSTITUTION.

FERMANAGH MILITIA--The following commission has been signed by the Right Hon. the Earl of Erney, Lieutenant of the County Fermanagh:--J. RUTHERFORD, Esq., Licentiate R.C.S.I., T.C.D., to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice WILSON resigned.

The MAGISTRACY--Pierce JOYCE, Esq., of Dervue has been appointed a Deputy-Lieutenant for the county of Galway. Theobald BLAKE, Esq., of Glenard, and Michael CHEEVERS, Esq., of Killian, have been appointed Deputy-Lieutenants for the county Galway.


Before T. Thompson, Esq., J.P., Chairman; W. Babington, Esq., J.P.; A Carden, Esq., J.P.; and William Murray Hickson, Esq., R.M.


Constable Wm. CONN brought up a girl named Maria REILLY (one of the "unfortunates"), charged with being drunk in the streets on the previous night. The Constable stated that he had great difficulty in carrying her to the barrack, that she was often arrested previously for drunkenness, and is a very ill conducted girl.

The Chairman said that her conduct was most disgraceful. The respectable inhabitants of the town were suffering great annoyance from such characters, and were abusing the police and magistrates for allowing them to escape. She should be imprisoned for 48 hours.


Adam LOWDEN v. Edward LOWDEN

This was an action brought to recover possession of a house situated in the Main-street of Cavan, Plaintiff is the father of defendant.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for defendant.--He said his client had got married in May last, and previous to his marriage had informed his parents of the step he was about to take, the person he was going to marry, and the fortune he was to receive (£20). His father expressed satisfaction at his choice, and told him he would give him possession of the house now in dispute, on condition that he would pay the arrears of head rent (£3 10s.), and pay 3s. a week afterwards, in order to make up the head rent. The head rent was £7, and 3s. a week would come to £7 10s., but the father had calculated it, he said, at 3s. a week in round numbers--the rent to be paid by young LOWDEN to his father, for Captain ERSKINE, the landlord. The son agreed to this arrangement, paid the arrears of head rent, received his father's blessing and the key of the house, entered into possession, and had continued to occupy the house up to the present, paying the rent agreed upon to his father, who now sought to turn him out.

Chairman--Can't this matter be settled in some way? It's a great shame to see a father and son quarrelling in such a manner.

Mr. Armstrong--We are willing to leave the whole matter to Captain Erskine..

Plaintiff--Captain Erskine has nothing to do with it. I only want my rights.

The case was then proceeded with. Service of the notice to quit was admitted by defendant.

Plaintiff deposed that he let the house in dispute to his son, on his marriage, at 3s. a week; he paid the rent regularly for five months; at the time the notice to quit was served he owed three weeks' rent (9s.), and refused to pay any further rent.

Cross-examined....Defendant is my eldest son; I did not know of his marriage till the night before it took place....I never offered to give up the house and furniture entirely to him....

Bernard SHERIDAN deposed that he was present at the bargain between plaintiff and his son, a fortnight or so after the latter was married; the bargain was 3s. a week; did not hear the father say he would give up possession to his son....

James MONTGOMERY (who served the notice to quit), on being referred to, said LOWDEN told him at the time the notice was issued, that if his son consented to pay the rent, he did not wish to disturb him.

Plaintiff--That's all I want now, either; but he wants to deprive me of all right to my house. Let him agree to pay it now, and I'm satisfied.

Defendant--I'd rather go beg first.

The Court gave a decree for possession.


Susan MULLIGAN summoned _____POYNTS, for having ill-treated her whilst she remained in his service.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for Miss MULLIGAN (a rather well-looking young lady, with a "nez refrousse," a rainbow-tinted shawl, and an extensive horticultural exhibition at each side of her bonnet), and, after some preliminary observations to the Bench, proceeded to elicit from his fair client a narrative of her grievances.

According to her statement she entered the service of her cruel master on the Tuesday after the last November hiring fair, agreeing to remain with him till the 14th of May next, and was to receive £1 5s. 3d. as the reward of her services....She brought to her new abode an excellent character and a gentle disposition, and expected to be treated with becoming deference. But alas for human expectations, so deficient in gallantry, and void of respect to her sex, was the rugged POYNTS, that his commands were shouted.....

POINTS (who seemed thunderstruck at the charges against him), stated that Miss MULLIGAN had been drawing on the "long boy;" she had got excellent food while in his service--as good as any farmer gave his servants; she had never complained of the diet either to himself or his wife...

Cross-examined--I might have told her to "go to H---;" well, of course, I have said "bad luck" to her; I daresay I did say "go be d---d" to her; of course it was wrong, but when you're payin' and feedin' people----

The Chairman said that, though POYNTS acted wrongly in cursing her, yet they had it in evidence that she had provoked him, and her statements in reference to the food she had got were entirely contradicted by an impartial witness. She should go back to her service, and put in her time honestly. Susan hoped they would order her better treatment. POYNTS hoped they would order her to behave better....

The Court gave her a choice--to go back, or forfeit her wages. She chose the latter alternative. Her summons was accordingly dismissed, and Mrs. POYNTS took possession of the bottle of objectionable milk.


Constable James M'CARTHY, of Stradone, brought the following summonses--

George FRAZER, for having two asses wander on the public road. Fined 6d. and costs.

Anne M'CABE, of Shankill, for allowing her dog to be unlogged and unmuzzled. Allowed until this day week to destroy the dog.

Thomas SMITH, of Drumcrow, for allowing two pigs to wander on the public road. Fined 6d. and costs.


Patrick QUILAN, James BROWN, and John MEEHAN, remanded from last Court-day, were again brought up charged with having assaulted John M'KERNAN, on the 10th instant.....The Court finally ruled that all the prisoners should be kept in for 48 hours.


Mr. James BURKE summoned a girl for having unlawfully detained a piece of sewed muslin taken out by her to be worked.

The girl's excuse was that she had been in service "off and on" since she took out the piece of muslin, and could not do it. She had, a few days ago, went to two or three girls in order to get them to work the piece for her, but Mr. BURKE would not tell them whether he would give the full price (4s.) for it when finished, and there was a yard of it already worked.

After investigating the case, the Court ruled that the girl be allowed a fortnight to finish the work, or get it finished, and if it is not done at the end of that time, that she be fined 2s. 6d.....Mr. BURKE said he no objection to this arrangement. He supposed the cost of the summons would be deducted from the price of the work.


Patt MONAGHAN summoned and old man named William BRADY, in order to recover possession of a room held by him, at 1s. a week, and for which he owed fourteen weeks' rent.

Decree for possession--defendant being allowed a week to provide himself with another tenement.


Thomas M'EVOY summoned John DEANE and Ellen DALY, for cruelly and brutally ill-treating his cattle and assaulting himself. There was a cross summons also, we believe.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for M'EVOY and stated that all the parties were tenants of Mr. SAUNDERS. The pass about which the dispute arose was in M'EVOY's possession for many years, and he was never disturbed in his right to it, until DEANE took it into his head to do so, and on the 16th of January the defendants were guilty of the offences charged in the summons.

DEANE said the matter had been left to arbitration on a former occasion, and he had the arbitrators in Court.

One of the arbitrators was examined, but he acknowledged that he had not been on the disputed pass.

SMITH, the bailiff, stated that the pass now in dispute was not the same as that about which the arbitration took place.

It was decided, without the case having been gone into, that the dispute should be referred to Mr. ROGERS, the agent.


Jane DAVIS, of Swellin, summoned Thomas THORNTON for assaulting her. Complainant stated that THORNTON and his wife had occupied a room in her home, but she could not stand their cursing and fighting, and told them they should leave, upon which defendant told her to do a very unpolite and unnecessary thing; his wife left on Thursday, and they removed their household goods with them; next morning defendant came in while she and her husband were at breakfast and said he came for some things forgotten by them; he said he had no ill will against her or her husband...she told him that he was welcome to take anything belonging to him that might be there; he took a spade and shovel, and went down to the room to take two sticks that were there; she told him they were not his, upon which he "wished her sowl to h--ll," and caught hold of her by the breast, and threw her across a chair, and gave her bad usage; her husband interfered to save her, and defendant was finally got out of the house, when he commenced to challenge her husband on the road.

THORNTON said she got a hold of the stick, and her hold slipped, but he did not shove her. Complainant's husband denied this.

THORNTON had a cross case of assault against complainant and her husband, but according to his own statement, they did not strike him at all. He was fined 1s. and costs, and allowed a week to pay it.

There was a charge of assault, window slashing, abusive language, &c., preferred by a woman named KAVANAGH against a girl named Margaret TWEEDY--both denizens of "Paradise Row." There was the usual supply of witnesses, hard swearing, and foul language. Both parties being in fault, they were bound over to keep the peace.

The Court then rose.


On Saturday last, at the Globe Hotel, in this town, Dr. Patrick KELLY, aged 50 years--deeply regretted by all who knew him.

On Saturday, the 21st inst., at the residence of her son-in-law, Mr. John SMITH, Main-street, Cavan, Mrs. REILLY, at an advanced age.

The Rev, Henry C. BROWNE, brother of Lord Inchiquin, for many years curate in the diocese of Kilmore, is appointed by the Bishop to the living held by the late Mr. CODDINGTON.

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.