Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan

July 7, 1860


Magistrates present:--Theophilus Thompson, Chairman; Wm. Babington, and Andrew Carden, Esqrs.


Mr. Thomas REILLY, barony cess collector, had a claim against the Rev. Samuel ROBERTS, Rector of Glen, for £1 11s. cess struck in 1859, and due upon Glen glebe, which Mr. Roberts refused to pay.

Mr. ROBERTS--I certainly did refuse to do so, because I paid the corresponding cess for Kill, previous to my removal. I wish to ask Mr. Reilly a few questions. What time did you get this cess to collect?

Mr. REILLY--It commenced in January--I can't exactly say on what day.

Chairman--And it's in force for two years. After receiving the Treasurer's warrant, Mr. Reilly might call the next day for the cess, or at any period during the existence of his warrant.

Mr. ROBERTS--But surely I have no right to pay this sum, as I paid for the corresponding period in Kill?

The Chairman explained to Mr. Roberts that the Act gives the collector power to enforce payment from the occupier of any premises assessed--even if he only occupied for a week previous to the demand being made; but that he (Mr. Roberts) can recover from the previous occupier of the Glebe, who was in possession when the cess was struck--Summer, 1859.......

Mr. Roberts said he would give Mr. Reilly a cheque for the £1 11s....Mr. Roberts said he was aware Mr. Reilly was merely performing his duty


Philip M'MAHON was fined 1s. and costs for getting "glorious."

Bridget M'CABE--found lying drunk on the Ballyhaise road--was fined 2s. 6d.

Hugh BROWNE and Edward REILLY--one an executioner of infantile beeves--the other travelling clerk to a paper mill, or "picker up of unconsidered trifles" in the shape of stray fragments of superannuated garments--were charged with being drunk and disorderly in the temperate town of Ballyhaise. Both bon vivants, it appeared, had been enjoying themselves over sundry "burnt naggins,".....As it was their first appearance in court, the bacchanalians were only fined 1s. and costs, or 24 hours in the "jug."

Margaret BRIARTY (one of the "unfortunates") was charged with lying drunk in Farnham-street at the hour of Divine service on Sunday. She said she "was afther puttin' in two months in jail, and took a little dhrop on the head of it." The Court did not consider this a sufficient excuse, and ordered her to be imprisoned for 48 hours.


A man named Thomas SCOTT was charged with stealing a quantity of turf, the property of Mr. Thos. REILLY, Butlersbridge.

Patk. SMITH, one of Mr. Reilly's servants proved the charge. Defendant did not appear, but service of the summons having been proved, the Court sentenced him to three months' imprisonment.


Patrick BRADY, of Castletara, summoned John BRADY for allowing his ass, on the 15th, and his cow, on the 16th ult., to trespass on complainant's crop.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for defendant, and said the trespass was committed through the insufficiency of complainant's mearing ditches. He was about to examine on this point, when the Chairman reminded him that that plea could not justify the trespass; defendant should have summoned complainant if his mearing ditches were insufficient.

Patt had another charge of trespass--that of three pigs--against defendant He demanded trespass on each occasion, with very unsatisfactory results....John had a cross-summons against Pat for the trespass of two calves in his cabbage garden, on the 23rd ult.

The Court fined John 2s. and costs for the trespass of the ass and cow, and 2s 6d. for the inroad of the pigs; and mulcted Pat 2s. for the incursion of the calves.

Patrick REILLY, of Shankill, summoned his friend, Thomas SMITH for allowing three calves to trespass on his meadow on the 20th and 22nd ult. Farrel REILLY proved the trespass. Defendant was fined 3s. and costs, and the Chairman said he wished he could make them better friends, and not have them so foolish as to be perpetually losing their time and money in useless litigation.


Susan MASTERSON was charged with assaulting a woman named HAUGHTON, a pauper in the Cavan Workhouse. The particulars of the assault appeared in a previous number....HAUGHTON said she would forgive Susan if that young lady promised not to lay violent hands on her again.

Susan (smiling grimly)--Troth she took a hould o' me hair afore I stirred her... The Chairman recommended them to make up their little difference, shake hands, and live in peace for the future.

The summons was then withdrawn, and the fair disputants retired--without exchanging the friendly clasp.


Andrew Smith was fined 2s. and costs for allowing his horse to wander on the public road.

Anne FLOOD was fined 6d. and costs for allowing a brace of juvenile porkers to indulge their peripatetic propensities on Sunday last.

Patrick TULLY was fined 1s. and costs for permitting two cows to wander unattended on the public road.


Pat ENNIS, of Clarebawn. had a process against John GALLIGAN, of Shankill, for £1 18s., due for horse hire, meal, and lent cash. Defendant had a setoff against this demand, and said the case had been left to arbitration previously.

Plaintiff denied that the present case had been left to arbitration, but the Court decided upon leaving it to the arbitrators--two respectable farmers, named STAFFORD and M'DONALL--a decree to be given subject to their award.


Terence GAFFNEY summoned Bernard BRADY for £3 17s. 6d., wages earned from Hollandtide to the 1st of May, out of which he had received a sum of 14s. 6d. Defendant did not deny the debt, but alleged that by their agreement he was not bound to pay until the 1st July, but Terry DUNNE, who "made the bargain" disproved this statement.

Defendant requested a few days' grace to make up the money. The Court gave a decree for £3 8s., to be paid on that day week--an arrangement highly distasteful to plaintiff, who wished to get his "pound of flesh" at once.


James BRADY, the old man charged with having committed the above offence upon the person of Catherine MORGAN, in the parish of Lara on the 3rd of April last, was again brought up in custody of Constable M'CARTHY.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for the prisoner, and said he thought he had been discharged altogether. To his own knowledge, the prisoner had been brought up twice before, and the prosecutrix did not think fit to appear.

Mr. Babington said the order was that the accused should receive notice to attend as soon as the prosecutrix could be found.

The prosecutrix, a strong, healthy-looking girl, with a child (illegitimate) about two years old in her arms, was then called, and her informations read to her. She swore to the truth of the statements, and in reply to various questions, said her master and mistress were from home at the time of the offence was committed; there were only BRADY, herself, and three children in the house; she used every possible resistance, and screamed loudly, but he succeeded in his criminal design; she told her mistress of the outrage that night, and swore informations on the following morning; BRADY gave her mother 30s to induce her to leave the country.

Constable M'CARTHY said the accused had absconded for about a month after the commission of the alleged offence.

BRADY, the person with whom the prosecutrix had been hired, contradicted some of her statements, but admitted that the bribe had been given to her.

The Court decided upon sending the case for trial to the Assizes, and admitted the prisoner to bail--himself in £20, and two sureties in £10 each.


An individual, who gave his name as Thomas M'INRCE, was charged with stealing a purse and 1l. note from the person of Daniel M'CANN.

The Chairman read the informations, which stated that the prosecutor was in FARRELLY's public-house in Stradone, on the 25th instant, and going up stairs; the prisoner was coming down, and he caught him putting his hand inside the vest to a pocket where he had his money; he at once seized hold of the prisoner, and dragged him out to the street, where he had to let him go for a few minutes, but he was afterwards arrested; the money and purse were gone.

Chairman--Is all this true, sir?

Here, Constable SHEALDS (who always keeps his "weather eye" open) detected the prisoner placing his foot upon the prosecutor's--as if to remind him that he was to "draw it mild," though both gentlemen indignantly denied this accusation. However, to prevent another nudge, the prisoner was ordered to stand father away from his accuser. The latter was then examined, and so shuffled and twisted from his informations, and exhibited such a horror of straightforward answers, that it was not until threatened with committal for perjury, he could be induced to adhere sufficiently to his first statement.

Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prisoner, and cross-examined the prosecutor. At the conclusion of the case, he said the prisoner would submit to their Worships' decision, but the Chairman said they had reason to believe that the prisoner was a notorious pickpocket and would send the case for trial to the Assizes. The prosecutor, in consequence of his reluctance to give evidence, should be bound to prosecute in the sum of £20. His Worship offered to admit the prisoner to bail, but as he could obtain none, he was retained in custody.


James REILLY had a charge of assault against a man named Edward CONNELL. Mr. Armstrong appeared for complainant.

It appeared as well as we could gather from the evidence that REILLY was coming down stairs in one of the public houses when CONNELL struck him twice in a most brutal manner on the head with a loaded whip or stick. An acquaintance who saw the occurrence, and who exhibited great reluctance to give evidence on the trial, endeavoured as well as he could to save him, saw CONNEL and his brother, and five or six others on the landing. It appeared to be a regular waylay.

M'CONNELL was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

James SMITH had a charge of assault against Edward DOUGHTY and Charles SMITH, committed on the same day, as he was going into a tent, by striking him on the back of the head with a stick or loaded whip. SMITH wished the magistrates to allow him to withdraw the charge, but as Constable M'CARTHY stated that there had been a most serious riot in Stradone--that the mob followed the police in order to effect a rescue, and that himself and Head-Constable were obliged to draw their side-arms, the Court compelled SMITH to give evidence. Notwithstanding his evident reluctance to give evidence--which provoked several severe rebukes from the Bench--one of the defendants (Smith), was found guilty, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment. The charge against DOUGHTY was dismissed, in consequence of the refusal of the complainant to identify him.

The Court then rose.

July 14, 1860


Magistrates present:--William Babington, Esq., Chairman; Nathaniel Montgomery and John G. Tatlow, Esqrs.


Owen BRADY summoned Patrick GOOLRICK for an assault, and stated that he was coming home from Stradone fair, "nice and dacent, and offendin' no one," when he went into the house of a man named CASSELS, who lives "on the side of the road;" the defendant was there, sitting at the fire, and asked him why he said, in the fair of Ballyhaise, that he (GOLDRICK) (sic) had not the price of a cow; he replied that he had never done so, and explained the conversation he had with defendant's wife at the fair of Ballyhaise, but defendant called him a blackguard, got up from his seat, and beat, kicked and battered him in an outrageous manner, without the slightest provocation.

Cross-examined by Mr. John Armstrong (who appeared for GOOLRICK)--Had taken very little drink that day; was quite sober; did not abuse GOLDRICK or knock the pipe of his mouth before he assaulted him; struck him afterward....

GOLDRICK had a cross-summons for assault against BRADY, and stated that when the latter came into CASSEL's home he was sitting at the fire, smoking; the conversation turned upon the expressions used by BRADY at the fair of Ballyhaise;......

The Chairman said the Court placed confidence in Brady's statement. He was an old man, and it was not probable that he would assault a strong young man like GOOLRICK....However, taking into account the good character handed to them by Goolrick, they would only impose a fine of 5s., or a week's imprisonment. The charge against Brady was dismissed....


Pat M'ALOON, caretaker to William Humphrys, summoned Henry DOLAN for trespassing on Mr. Humphrys land, injuring his fence, and trampling his oats, although cautioned repeatedly against doing so. M'ALOON, however, expressed a hope that as defendant was a "poor boy," their Worships would not "do too much to him."

He had another summons against an old man, named Owen NEALE, for having allowed his ass to trespass on Mr. Humphrys's meadow....

M'ALOON had a third summons against Patrick BRADY for the following offence:--Saw him walking in Mr. Humphrys's wood; followed him hard foot, and only the fellow was blind he'd see me after him; first he cut an oak saplin'; that didn't seem to plaze him, and he threw it away; then he went to a rowan three--you know, gentlemen--an' cut a good long saplin';.....No evidence was produced on the part of defendants, but they severely cross-examined M'Aloon; and Brady exhibited a small forked branch, which he asserted was the only one cut by him in Mr. Humphrys's wood. M'Aloon, however, did not vary in his testimony, although he "put in a good word" for each of the defendants.

The Chairman said that as it was his (Brady) first offence, and believing he committed it through ignorance they would only fine him 5s., or a week's imprisonment. Dolan and Neale should pay a fine of 6d. and costs. He recommended the latter not to allow his ass to wander in M'Aloon's way again....

John COYLE summoned Patrick BRADY for having allowed his ass to trespass on and damage complainant's oats and potato crop twice each day on the 20th, 25th, and 29th June, and also on the 5th July. The case having been proved, defendant was fined 3s. and costs.

Alice SMITH summoned Michael SMITH for trespassing, and cutting sods and sticks upon a piece of bog, her property. [This case was before the Court at least half a dozen times last summer. Complainant is a widow; her deceased husband was brother to defendant; who claims the bog by virtue of her husband's will; defendant also claims it, and alleges that he pays rent for it.] Defendant applied to have the case postponed for a week. ...The Court consented to adjourn the case for a week, and told defendant that he is not to meddle with the bog in the meantime.


Mr. John Armstrong said he appeared on behalf of Hugh Nelson M'KINDRY, a sewed muslin agent, charged with having committed a criminal assault upon Bridget HAUGHTON. He applied to have the case postponed for a week, as the accused was suffering under a severe illness, and unable to attend....Dr. MALCOMSON deposed that he had been attending M'KINDRY since the previous Friday; he was extremely ill...The Court adjourned the case for a week, and the prosecutrix was re-bound.


William BRADY charged John Armstrong with having, at Kennypottle, on Tuesday, the 4th inst., assaulted him, and forcibly rescued some goods seized for county cess. Defendant did not appear, but service of the summons was proved. The Chairman read Brady's informations, and questioned him as to the circumstances under which the offence was committed.

It appeared that in accordance with his instructions he went to Armstrong's house, and demanded the amount of cess due by him; as he could not obtain this, he was obliged to seize a trunk and some other articles; told Armstrong he did not wish to expose him, and would keep the seizure a secret, but notwithstanding this, and the remonstrances of his wife, Armstrong resisted, pulled and dragged him about, but without striking him, and rescued the goods.

Chairman--Did you serve a notice upon him that you would cal for the cess?

Mr. T. REILLY--There is no notice required, sir--merely a demand.

Chairman--Did he know that Brady came for the cess?

Brady said Armstrong was well aware of it, for he had called to him for the cess on several occasions previously. Mr. Reilly said he did not wish to press the case, if Armstrong paid the cess. The Court made an order for informations to be taken.


Sub-constable LYNCH summoned Peter BAILLEY for having allowed two head of cattle to wander on the public road at Drumhahurk, on the 6th instant. Defendant (a very deaf old man) said that his little farm runs along the side of the road; he has to pay for several perches of the road, and thinks it very hard his cows cannot get a mouthful of grass along the side of it.

The Chairman informed him that the Act of Parliament did not allow him to graze his cattle along the road, no matter what extent of it he was paying for.....The Court imposed a fine of 2s. and costs.

Defendant--Ye might as well send me over to gaol at once, for I haven't it--today, anyhow.

Finally the Court reduced the fine one-half, and defendant promised to pay it.

Sub-constable LYNCH also summoned Richard HUMPHRYS for having allowed three cows to wander on the public road. Defendant alleged, and expressed his willingness to swear that he was driving the cows when the policeman came up to him..Sub-Constable LYNCH said there was another constable (NOLAN) with him when he saw defendant and his cattle on the road....As the evidence was so conflicting, the Court postponed the case for a week, and Sub-constable LYNCH was directed to have Sub-constable NOLAN and Constable NEADOM in attendance.


Mary GRAHAM was brought up in custody, charged on the informations of James STAFFORD, whose hired servant she had been, with having, on the night of the 21st, or early on the morning of the 22nd ult., stolen from his house one gown, two capes, two silk neckties, a pair of woman's boots, and other articles.

The Chairman cautioned the prisoner in the usual manner.

Sub-Constable Patrick COLMAN, of Dunshaughlin, county Meath, deposed that, in consequence of information received from Constable M'CARTHY, of Stradone, he arrested the prisoner in Kilmessan; her mother lives in that neighbourhood; she wore a cape (produced) when arrested, and acknowledged, when brought before Lord Dunsany, and after being duly cautioned, that she was guilty of the charge against her; she bore a bad character in Kilmessan--having been accused of robbery on more than one occasion--but never convicted. STAFFORD identified the cape found with the prisoner as one of those stolen from his house....

The Chairman asked the prisoner if she wished to put any questions to the witnesses. She declined to do so....The Clerk inquired whether she wished to be tried by the Court or sent to the Assizes.

Prisoner--I don't understand, sir.

Clerk--Will you be tried now, or go back to prison, and afterwards be tried by the Judge and twelve men?

Prisoner (after much hesitation)--I'll go back to gaol, sir.

Sent for trial to the Assizes.


Mr. George BUCHANAN informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his bail bonds and resign the situation of pound-keeper.

The Court informed him that as the last pound-keeper had to give a month's notice when resigning they would make the same rule in his case.

The Court then rose


July 11th, at the Rectory, Castlerahan, the wife of the Rev. Dr. HOGG, of a son.

On the 8th inst., at the Manse, Cavan, Mrs. CARSON, of a son.

On the 5th inst., at 98, Main-street, Cavan, the wife of the Rev. W. ARMSTRONG, of a son.


On the 10th inst., at Coydruffe House, Baillyhaise, after a long illness, Alexander C. HARMAN, Esq., aged 61 years.

July 21, 1860


Sligo, July 17


Mr. Justice CHRISTIAN took his seat at ten o'clock, and having sworn a special jury, proceeded to try the following traverses:--

Henry LYONS, Traverser; the Midland Great Western Railway Company, respondents.

This was a traverse to the award of Mr. RYND, the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Works. The defendants who are constructing the branch line to Sligo, had taken one acre of the lands of Carreneil, the property of the plaintiff, distant about two miles from the town of Sligo, and the arbitrator awarded Mr. LYONS the sum of £50, which award be traversed as insufficient. The jury confirmed the award.

SIM, traverser; Midland Great Western Railway Company, respondents

In this case the company had taken three roods of the lands of Knappaghbeg. The lands lie about half a mile from the town, and compensation was claimed both for severance and accommodation works. The arbitrator had awarded £368 15s., which award was traversed as being insufficient.

The jury gave £348 15s.

J. H. RAMSAY, traverser; same, respondents

In this case the company had taken four acres of the plaintiff's land, and the arbitrator had awarded £591, and £17 10s. in respect of the premises. When the case was called on, Mr. ROPER, for the traverser, stated that he had advised his client to accept the sum awarded and withdraw the traverse. Agreed to.

Peter CONNOR, traverser, same, respondents.

In this case the company had taken four acres six perches of the plaintiff's lands of Rathedmoud, situated close to the town of Sligo. The arbitrator had awarded the sum of £1,080, and that he should be exonerated from an annual rent of £24 in respect of the premises. The traverser claimed £1,877.

The jury found for the amount given by the award.

William Henry PORTER, Esq., M.D., Professor of Surgery in the College, has been elected the representative of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland on the General Council of Medical Education in the United Kingdom.

Constable Isaac FETHERSTON of the Kileigh station has within the last three weeks apprehended three deserters from the 20th foot, another from the 65th foot, and a third from the King's County Royal Rifles Militia.



At 12 o'clock on Thursday, in the Record Court the following gentlemen were sworn on


Colonel the Hon. J. P.Maxwell, M.P., Foreman; Hon. Richard Maxwell, Hon, Colonel Clements, Captain R. J. Cumming, Captain G. D. Beresford, Captain Phillips, James Hamilton, John H. Adams, John E. Vernon, Joseph Story, David Fielding Jones, Theophilus L. Clements, Nathaniel Montgomery, Benjamin S. Adams, James Fay, J. W. Stanford, Jas., M'Fadin, Perrot Thornton, William Smith, Hugh Swanzey, N. Montgomery, Joseph Dickson and G. H. L'Estrange, Esqrs.

The Grand July, having taken their seats, proceeded to consider the applications for presentments approved of at Special Sessions, and the various matters brought before them.

The following gentlemen were on the committees:--

CORONERS--Captain Cumming, Captain Phillips, and William Smith, Esq.

Court House--Same

TREASURERS--John E. Vernon, B. S. Adams, and J. H. Adams, Esqrs.


To George GALLOGAY, Esq., half a year's salary as superannuated governor of Cavan Gaol, 85l.

To Mrs. ARMSTRONG, late matron of the County Gaol, 10l.

To Peter MULLIGAN, for his half-year's salary as superannuated constable, due at the present assizes, 3l. 6d.


To John M'FADDEN, 1st Coroner, for having held 18 inquests, 19l. 10s

To William POLLOCK, 2nd Coroner, for having held 12 inquests since last assizes, 18l.

To reimburse Robert KEARNS, for having repaired a sudden breach in a gullet at Keilagh road Killeshandra to Ballyconnell, on the order of Perrott Thornton and William M. Hickson, Esqrs., dated 22nd December, 1858, 2l. 10s.

To reimburse William MORTON of Druminion, for having repaired a sudden breach in the gullets of Aghnacreeva, road Ballyconnell, to Killeshandra, on order of Perrott Thornton and William M. Hickson, Esqrs., dated 15th of June, 1860.

The Grand Jury met at ten o'clock on Thursday, in their room. A letter was read from Mr. Moses NETTERFIELD, High Constable and collector for the barony of Tullyhaw, informing the Grand Jury that his other avocations compelled him to resign his office. He thanked the Grand Jury for their invariable indulgence and courtesy towards him. The resignation was accepted.

Mr. Thornton proposed that Mr. Richard NETTERFIELD, jun., be appointed successor to his father.....The resolution was agreed to.


Only two cases of malicious injury came before the Grand Jury. The first was on the Barony of Clonmahon, viz:--

To reimburse Michael REILLY of Carrigan, for the malicious burning of a corn mill, his property, on the lands of Drumhillagh, Parish of Ballintemple, on the night of 30th December or following morning. Decision at sessions--not considered to be malicious, 95l. 5s. .....After the examination of several witnesses, the Grand Jury unanimously threw out the application.

The next claim was on the Barony of Tullyhaw, viz:--

To James CURRY of Macklagh, for the malicious burning of cow house, barn, six cows, one heifer, one bull, a quantity of potatoes, oats, and fowl, his property, on the night of the 23rd April, 1860, or early on the following morning, at Macklagh, parish of Tomregan, in this barony. Amount claimed, 76l.--to be levied off the parish of Tomregan. Decision at Sessions--considered malicious......The facts of the case were as follows: The applicant, a young man, had had the misfortune to have a child by a young woman. The Roman Catholic clergyman of the parish made a settlement or award in the case, which the applicant paid, but she afterwards took proceedings against him at the Quarter Sessions, and he dismissed her action. She threatened to have revenge of him, and there was no moral doubt that she committed the injuries to his property for which he sought compensation, although the legal evidence was not sufficiently strong to convict her. This girl was not a native of this county, had no settlement in the district of the outrage, and there was nothing agrarian in the outrage itself. The parish was a small and poor one, and he applied, on behalf of the cess-payers of the parish, to have the sum claimed levied off the barony.

The applicant and two valuators testified to the same effect. After considerable discussion, Mr. Vernon proposed, and Mr. Story seconded, that the applicant receive 60l. to cover all costs. Captain Phillips considered he should get all or none, and moved, as an amendment, that he receive the amount claimed. Mr. B. H. Adams seconded the resolution. On a division there appeared--for the amendment, 10; for the resolution, 10.

Mr. Moses NETTERFIELD was examined. He believed, and it was the universal impression in the district, that the outrage was malicious, and the sum claim less than the loss sustained.


(Before Chief Justice Monahan)

The business of the Court consisted of seventeen appeals, one record, and two or three ejectments. In the case of Bernard BRADY v. the Ulster Bank, the decision of the Barrister was affirmed.

Their Lordships left town this evening for Enniskillen, to open the Commission there.


Before T. Thompson, Esq., J.P., Chairman; and W. Babington, Esq., J.P.


Mr. John Armstrong, on behalf of Hugh Nelson M'KINDRY, charged with a criminal assault upon Bridget HAUGHTON, applied for a further postponement of the case, on the ground that his client was seriously unwell. He had left Cavan on Saturday evening, in order to go to Belturbet to procure professional assistance....has been confined to his bed, and attended by Dr. Humphrys.....The Clerk said that M'KINDRY was with him on Saturday, and took out summonses for a great many witnesses....He did not appear in good health, and was trembling very much....The Court, after some discussion, consented to postpone the case for a week.


John TIERNEY brought a civil bill process against Anna Maria CARSON, for 6s. 10½d., money due for blacksmith's work and attending to defendant's horse. Mrs. CARSON did not appear, but service of the process having been proved, the Court gave a decree for the amount claimed.


Thomas CULLEN processed Thomas M'GOVERN for 7s. 6d., money overpaid in giving defendant change of a sovereign. Plaintiff keeps a public house in the Main-street, Cavan; defendant went in, with two others, and called for some porter in one of the rooms upstairs; a young man came in for change of a £1 note, which plaintiff gave him, and immediately afterwards defendant came to pay for the drink he had ordered and placed a sovereign on the counter; the £1 note was also on the counter.....Defendant said he was willing to swear that he only got 2s. 6d. over-change from plaintiff.

The Court informed plaintiff that they had no power to deal with the case; it was not brought for goods sold, money lent, or a settled account. He might proceed criminally against defendant, or take a civil action against him for money paid in his own wrong.


Sub-Constable LYNCH summoned a farmer named HUMPHRYS for allowing three head of cattle to graze along the side of the public road near Butler's-bridge. The case was postponed from last Court-day, in consequence of the evidence given being so contradictory...Sub-Constable NOLAN corroborated LYNCH's testimony; they saw Humphrys for about twenty minutes (while they were walking 20 or 30 perches), before they came up to him....he was not driving the cattle...he drove the cattle back, instead of going forward with them. Constable NEADOM said he caught Humphrys grazing his cattle along the road on a former occasion.

Humphrys persisted in his original statement, but the Court considered the charge proved, and fined him 6d. and costs.


The case of Alice SMITH against Michael SMITH, for having, on the 6th of July, trespassed on a plot of bog, her property, postponed, on the application of defendant, from last Court day, was again gone into. James GRAY and Mr. Luke LEE were examined. The former proved that the plot of bog had been in possession of Mrs. Smith and her deceased husband for several years, and that she still holds possession. Mr. LEE's testimony was to the same effect, but in explaining his knowledge of the bog he stated that defendant always claimed, and pays rent for the bog. The witness was complimented by the Bench on his straightforward manner in which he gave his evidence.

At the conclusion of the case, the Court fined defendant 1s. and 4s. costs, and told him that if he again comes before them for the same offence, the fine will be much heavier.

The Court then rose.

July 28, 1860


The following is one of the cases heard in the Record Court, before Chief Justice MONAHAN, on Saturday.

Warren D. KING

This action arose out of the great scarcity of hay during the last year. The plaintiff claimed 300l. damages, incurred by the loss which he sustained through the non-delivery on the part of the defendant, of 100 tons of hay, purchased by the plaintiff at the rate of 4l. per ton. This purchase took place in last February. For the defence it was alleged that the plaintiff was to send for the hay and pay for it on delivery, and that he neither sent for it nor was he ready to pay.

On some dispute as to the pleadings his Lordship, on motion of Mr. M'CAUSLAND, gave defendant liberty to file a new defence, denying the contract as alleged, and the plaintiff leave to add other counts to summons and (illegible). Defendant to pay the costs of the day.


Magistrates present--Theophilus Thompson, Chairman; Wm. Babington, N. Montgomery, and J. G. Tatlow, Esqrs.


The charge of criminal assault preferred by Bridget HAUGHTON, an inmate of Cavan Workhouse, against Hugh Nelson M'KINDRY, a "sprigging" or sewed muslin agent, was the first case called.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for the defendant.

The Chairman read the information of the prosecutrix, and it appeared that on Monday, the 2nd of July, she attended at the Petty Sessions Court, by directions of the Board of Guardians, to prefer a charge of assault against Susan MASTERSON, another inmate of the Workhouse. Some of the female paupers are in the habit of taking in what is commonly known as "sprigging" work, and they do this without the knowledge of the Board of Guardians or Master. When leaving the Workhouse on the day in question the prosecutrix was intrusted with a piece of this work; which had been finished by another pauper named LOWDEN. As soon as her business at the Court was over, she went with this work to the defendant's office, in the Main-street, where as she alleged, he committed a violent and indecent assault upon her. She swore informations against him on the same day; but in consequence of the illness of the defendant, the case was postponed on the two following Court days. The details of the case are, of course, unfit for publication.

The prosecutrix was ably cross-examined by Mr. Armstrong, and varied in her testimony of several important points. She was also contradicted in almost every particular by several of the witnesses called for the defence.

After a lengthened and careful investigation, the Court dismissed the case.

M'KINDRY had a charge against HAUGHTON of having stolen a piece of muslin from his office on the 2nd of July, but it was not proceeded with.


Henry ARGUE, George ARGUE, Christopher ARGUE, Joseph BEATTY, Joseph ROUNTREE, and John PATTERSON were charged with having, at Castleterra, on the 12th July, met and joined in a procession, carrying a flag or banner, and playing instruments of music, contrary to the statute.

All the defendants appeared with the exception of Henry ARGUE.

The Rev. Mr. LESLIE stated that Henry Argue had gone to the seaside previous to the issuing of the summonses.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared on behalf of the defendants.

Sub-Inspector NAPIER said that the first witness he intended to call was James MAGUIRE--one of those who had taken part in the illegal procession.

Mr. Armstrong objected and trusted the Court would not allow one of the men liable for the offence to be examined in support of the charge.

The Chairman said he could see no objection to receiving such testimony. It was often done--in murder cases, for instance. Mr. Armstrong contended that the practice in murder cases was not applicable to such prosecution as the present.

Sub-Inspector Napier said that in consequence of the absence of the police on the 12th, he was unable to produce any of them as witnesses. [Discussion about witnesses] Finally Mr. Armstrong's objection was overruled, Sub-Inspector Napier consented to call other witnesses before the one objected to, and

Philip CALLAGHAN (a young lad, between 13 and 14 years of age) was called.

Chairman--Do you know the nature of an oath, my boy?

Witness--I'll be damned if I tell a lie, sir.

Sub-Inspector Napier then examined the witness, who deposed as follows:--I live at Coravany; I remember the 12th of July; a lot of boys walked by our house; they were beating a drum; they had a fife, too; they were playing it; some of them had "swashes" round them; the "swashes" were "yellow"; they did nothing to me or to any one else; they were walking two abreast.....Cross-examined by Mr. Armstrong----hadn't a "swash" round me; there were some boys with me; I only saw one fife and a drum.....

Mr. Armstrong--And do you think that the procession tended to give offence to any of Her Majesty's subjects?

Witness--No, sir (laughter).

To the Chairman--I didn't notice the man that carried the flag.....

A witness named M'CORMACK was called, but did not appear.

Ellen NEWMAN was the next witness called. On making her appearance she said, "It's not worth your while to swear me, for all I know about it. I was outside my own door, and I heard them coming, and I went in and stooped over my tub, and was--

Chairman--Can you give us all that on oath, ma'am?

Witness--I can......

Sub-Inspector Napier--And who was that man?

Witness--Well, I thought it was Joe ROUNTREE.

Mr. Armstrong--And did they annoy you or give you any offence?

Witness--Not a bit......

Thomas M'KEOWN examined--Remembers the 12th of July; saw a party going along the road; there were men and women... going along the road; they had a flag and some colours; they gave no offence to me, nor I to them......

Arthur M'NALLY examined--I remember the 12th of July...I saw Joseph Rountree, Christopher Argue and Joseph Beatty there....They gave no offence to any one, and no one offended them.......

James MAGUIRE, on being sworn and cautioned against criminating himself, said he had nothing more to state than what the other witnesses had stated.....[After much discussion]

The Court decided upon binding them over, in their own recognizances in the sum of £5 each to attend on next court day.

The witnesses were also directed to attend.


Mr. John Armstrong applied to the Court under the following circumstances:--He had been engaged by some young men named REILLY, to defend a case brought against them by a man named SMITH, and they had lost their time, and gone to the expense of obtaining professional assistance for nothing, as Smith did not chose to attend. He had repeatedly brought summonses for assaults, trespasses, &c., against the Reillys, and when the day of hearing came, stayed away from Court. He (Mr. A.) trusted that the Court, under these circumstances, would dismiss the case brought by Smith and allow his clients their costs.

The Court expressed a wish to have the fact proved on oath.

Farrell REILLY deposed that Smith did not attend on this or the last occasion on which he summoned himself and his brother.

The summons-server said that Smith told him on Friday that the Bailiff was to settle the dispute between him and the Reillys. Smith gave the Reillys intimation of this, and it was the reason of his non-attendance.

Reilly--He told us at eight o'clock this morning.

Mr. Armstrong said that his clients had not been told that there was about to be a settlement until after they had engaged his services.

The Court dismissed the case, and allowed the defendants 5s. costs.


James BURNS summoned Patrick FOY for having assaulted him in Cavan on the 7th July, and stated while transacting his business as an egg and fowl dealer, defendant--who is a rival merchant--commenced to give him the "height of abuse," said he was "afraid to go to Bailieborough because he was known to be a robber," &c., and on going over to him to ask "What d'ye mean, Pat?" Mr. FOY "hit him a kick" in the chin with his boot, which cut him a little, and would have been more serious in its results but that he lessened its force by a judicious retrograde movement.

FOY stated that he was sitting on a box of eggs when complainant commenced to abuse him, make insinuations of insolvency, and charged him with most "fowl" conduct. When remonstrated with he "made a charge" at defendant, who, in order to keep him back, lifted his foot, he struck against it, and that was the only assault committed.

Complainant had no witness to sustain his case, but said he could get twenty, if their Worships postponed the case.

The Court declined to do so, and said it was evident that he brought on himself whatever assault was committed, by rushing on defendant. They should, therefore, dismiss the case.

Complainant said he had been sixteen years in business--ever since he was able. "It did not suit any man in public business to have his character run away with." It was his character he cared for, and he was determined to "summons for it."

The Court then rose.


Enniskillen, Friday, July 20

The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury, at three o'clock this day, in the Crown Court, before Edward MAGUIRE, Esq., High Sheriff, by Wm. William Smartt, Esq., acting Clerk of the Crown:--Mervyn Archdall, Esq., M.P., foreman; the Hon. Henry A. Cole, M.P.; John Grey Vesey Porter, William Archdall, Folliott W. Barton, John Caldwell Bloomfield, Francis John Graham, Arthur Cole, John Collum, Paul Dane, Robert Archdall, Richard Hall, Edward Irwin, John Brady, Arthur J. Armstrong, Alexander Nixon, John Crozier, George Woods, John Pierce Hamilton, Henry Echlin, M. H. Sankey, Jas. Benison, and Edward Athill, Esqrs.

Monday July 23


(Before Chief Justice Monahan)

The Grand July having been re-sworn, his Lordship said he was happy to be able to congratulate them on the lightness of the calendar and that if he could judge of the state of their county from that although the people of this county thought it right to abstain from breaking the letter of the law, they did not think it necessary to keep from breaking its spirit, and that too in a manner most discreditable to their county. The idea that a clergyman would allow his church to be used for the purpose of raising party feeling and party malice! He would have hoped that common sense had reached this county as in others. The law in its wisdom did not stop this, but he would hope that the gentlemen of the county would aid him in putting down such discreditable proceedings.

Mr. Archdall, as foreman, said that it was not for him to question his Lordship's observation, but he would assure him that no insult was intended to Roman Catholics. His Lordship said that insult was composed of the intention of the party giving as well as of the one receiving. He wondered at any one considering it as an insult; but if there were many who did so, it ought to be put a stop to......

The Grand July then retired, and his Lordship proceeded to fiat the presentments.

Tuesday, July 24

The entire business of the assizes being disposed of this evening at four o'clock, the presiding judges, Chief Justice Monahan and Baron Hughes, immediately retired from court.


SUDDEN DEATH--An inquest was held on Friday, the 20th inst., before J. P. NEARY, Esq., one of the coroners for the county Louth, on view of the body of a woman named MULLEN, living in Tubberboise, in the western suburbs of the town. From the evidence it appeared that on Thursday evening the deceased was in the act of handing to her husband--who was employed at the time at his business, a weaver--some matter the latter required, when she fell down insensible. He immediately ran and took her up, and called for assistance, upon the arrival of which it was found she had ceased to live. The awful suddenness of the death was more remarkable from the fact that up to the time of her death the deceased enjoyed very good health. A verdict of "Died by the visitation of God" was consequently handed in by the jury.

CORONER'S INQUEST--James Patrick NEARY, Esq., on the 20th inst., held an inquest at the house of Mr. Joseph KEOGH, the proprietor of a pawnbroker's sale-shop in West-street, Drogheda, on view of the body of Mrs. Belinda KEOGH, who died on the evening of Thursday, the 19th instant. Mr. Joseph KEOGH, the husband of the deceased, was present during the painful inquiry, which it seems was brought on by certain gossiping rumours relative to the manner in which she came to her death; the facts connected with which, as far as they were elicited, are as follows:--The deceased took ill of fever in the early part of the week, and was attended by Dr. HORGAN. On Tuesday night KEOGH got drunk, and became so disorderly in the house that it was necessary to have him removed by the night patrol, and lodged in the watchhouse. Dr. HORGAN had been personally applied to by Mr. KEOGH, who appeared to have acted all through with much kindness, and a nurse-tender was also employed. Unfortunately, he got drunk, and, in an altercation with the latter, he turned her out of doors, but next re-employed her. There were no marks of violence on the body of deceased, nor evidence to show that any had been made use of. The coroner having summed up, the jury found that the deceased died from natural causes.


BANAGHER, SATURDAY--Robert EYRE, who after attempting to murder his father in that town on Thursday night last, and who subsequently cut his own throat, died from the effects thereof this morning.--The following particulars have transpired:--It appears that the deceased and his parents quarreled on the previous Tuesday, when the deceased assaulted his mother, and in consequence of that misconduct his father obtained a warrant against him, and upon which he was apprehended and lodged in the bridewell there, when he remained until Thursday afternoon, when he was discharged on bail; after which he went to his father's house and armed himself with a razor, and with it inflicted on his father's face two deep wounds, one of which extended from the eyebrow to the point of the chin, and the other from the chin to the ear. The cries of Mrs. EYRE brought to her husband's assistance a man named NOWLAN, who seized Robert EYRE, and after some difficulty succeeded in knocking him down and rescued the elder Eyre from further injury. During the struggle the former inflicted several wounds with the razor on NOWLAN. After this conflict Robert Eyre ran to the yard, and attempted to break into it. NOWLAN again returned, and found him with another razor, with which he had inflicted a deep wound on his own throat, and from which blood was flowing very fast. Nowland then sent for the police, and they called in medical air. Robert Eyre, as already stated, languished until this day, when he expired. The deceased was heard to say that he would shoot his father and mother as soon as he would get out of gaol; but his gun was lent to another man during his absence in gaol,otherwise it is probable he would have carried his desperate threat into execution. The deceased, Robert Eyre, was in America for some years, and returned about eight months ago, and since resided with his parents at Eyrecourt. He was considered a very quiet young man up to the time of the quarrel with his parents, which led to the commission of this awful tragedy. His father is a respectable man, highly thought of in the neighbourhood.--Saunders.

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.