Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan
June 2, 1860
CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--MONDAY
Before Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P., Chairman; William Babington, Esq., J.P.; Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., J.P.; Andrew Carden, Esq., J.P.; Joseph Storey, Esq., J.P.; and Wm. M. Hickson. R.M.
THE "UNRULY MEMBER"
Michael TEEVAN summoned an old woman named Mary REYNOLDS for having assaulted him, and used abusive and threatening language towards him, on the 17th instant. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for complainant.
Complainant, on being sworn, stated that as he was coming out of Butlersbridge on the above day, in company with another "boy," the defendant came up to him and began to "shame" him along the road; called him "a rogue or a robber--one thing or the other;" charged him with saying that "her son should be hung, or would be hung;" termed him "a stuttering rascal;" lifted a stone to him, and threatened to strike him with it; spate in his face, &c.
The young man who was with complainant when defendant "pitched into him" corroborated his statement.
The old lady candidly acknowledged that she gave complainant a "tong-thrashing"--that she lifted the stone to him, and perpetrated the other piece of politeness laid to her charge; but, in order to demonstrate that there was nothing unpraiseworthy or illegal in her proceedings, was about to regale the Court with a chronological account of the wrongs inflicted by complainant upon herself and her "little boy;" how he would not allow the latter to "get a day's work, until he was obliged to come into Cavan and "list in the Militia," &c.; but the Chairman told her that the Court had nothing to do with these matters, and asked if she had any evidence to disprove the charge against her?
She had none, but alleged that complainant "girrened" and laughed at her, and "slobbered" in her face, before she resorted to the like extreme measure.
The Court considered the charged proved, and ordered her to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. and costs, or be imprisoned for one week, hoping that it would be a caution to her not to use abusive language in future.
Defendant--Well, I'll go to jail now before I'd accommodate him, so I will; an' I can get a karacther from Mr. GALOGLY--Here she was, with some difficulty, removed to the "reserved seats," where she "subsided;" at the rising of the Court, however, she came upon the table, and with sundry winks and nods informed their Worships that they were"afther sentencin' her very wrongfully;" she then held the 4s. (2s. 6d. fine and 1s. 6d. costs) in her hand, and asked would "TEEVAN get it?" She appeared quite refreshed on hearing that only the costs would be given to TEEVAN, and paid the amount--again declaring that she would "sooner go to jail than accommodate him!"
CHANGING A PASS
Hugh BRADY, of Laragh, summoned Patrick CLARKE, Patrick DONOHO, Dan. DONOHO, and Patrick DONOHOE, for having, on the 1st of May, trespassed upon his holding and injured his crop, after having been previously cautioned.
Mr. John Armstrong appeared for defendants.
It appeared from the evidence that a very old public pass, to which the tenants of two or three estates had a right, ran through a field belonging to complainant. As that pass was a great convenience to him, he "laboured" it, and made a new pass, which was much more convenient than the old one. In proof of this, he produced a document, bearing five signatures and stating that the new pass was "more convenient and not half the length of the old one." The document was dated the 26th of May. None of the defendants had signed it; but complainant alleged that they had, with one exception, agreed to accept the new pass, both before and since the old one was "laboured,' yet, not withstanding this, they came, on the day named in the summons, and dug up a portion of the crop sown on the old pass....The Court dismissed the summons, but recommended that complainant to try and get the agents of Colonel SAUNDERSON, Major BRADY, and the other gentlemen interested to examine the new pass, and obtain for their tenants a guarantee that they will have the same right to it as they had to the old pass.
HIRING AS GROOM
Hugh M'GARAGHAN processed Mr. Wm. FEGAN for £1 12s., amount of a half-year's wages, from May, 1860, to November 1860.
The Clerk asked complainant had he 6d. to pay for the entry. Complainant said he had not, but he would be able to get it. The Court consented to allow the case to stand over for a quarter of an hour;...on his return he produced the "tanner", and deposed as follows:--I hired with Mr. FEGAN a few days after last hiring fair; he was to give me £2 12s. 6d. up to November; Tuesday eight days he turned me away, at night; he said I was near breaking the mare's knees.....
Mr. FEGAN deposed that he hired the plaintiff to attend to a mare; he did not know how to put on a collar or head-stall; he knew nothing whatever about managing a horse........gave him 4s for these days; he wanted 6s. at first, but he appeared satisfied with the 4s.....The Court dismissed the case; plaintiff had no right to take the money if he were not satisfied with it.
STAY OF EXECUTION
Peter M'LENNON v. Daniel LEDDY
Plaintiff is at present in gaol, as an insolvent debtor. Defendant is a process server.
Mr. Armstrong--I appear for the complainant, your Worships. It is an action brought to recover the sum of 15s., "cash gave and advanced, for which no value or consideration was received."
Chairman--If no value or consideration was received, Mr. Armstrong, can we hear it? We have power to deal with cases brought to receive money due either for goods, cash lent, or on foot of a settled account. The question is--can we consider this a debt?
LEDDY--That's the only issue you have to try, gentlemen. Mr. Armstrong, with all his ingenuity, can't make it into a debt; nor that hedge lawyer behind him, either [alluding to "Counsellor" SMITH, sheriff's officer].........The Court, after some discussion, having decided upon hearing the case, Mr. Armstrong called upon Edward M'CABE, sheriff's bailiff, as a witness.
M'CABE bluntly declined to "kiss the primer," until he received his day's wages, as he had to "put a man in his place," in order to attend the Court.
Mr. Armstrong--Your Worships will compel him to give evidence?
Chairman--Can we, in a civil case, Mr. Armstrong? I don't see, as the man has been brought in from his work, why he shouldn't be paid his day's wages.....
M'CABE, on being sworn, inquired if the Court wished to "know the whole truth about it," and on being answered in the affirmative, made the following statement:--Some time last winter....I was going down bridge street on a Saturday, and Peter M'LENNON called me in; I went in with him to the little room, and (illegible) in a half-glass of whiskey to treat me;...he asked me would I be in town to-morrow; I told him I didn't think I would....I have a guess of what you want: weren't you served with a writ lately? "I was," says he, "for £10, and if I could get a little time, I'd be able to make up the money;" the best you can do, says I, is to give £1 to Attorney Tully, and get him to enter a defence; but do nothing, say I, till I see Dan LEDDY, and if he's not after making the affidavit, maybe we'll get him to keep it back for a few days; so Peter told me to see Dan, and do what I could; well, I did see Dan, and I asked him was he after making the affidavit; he said he wasn't; well, says I, I think I can get you a bit of money if you don't make it for a week: "how much can you get?" says Dan; maybe a £1, says; so I went back to Peter and told him; he wasn't willing to give £1, but he told me to make as right a bargain as I could; Dan wasn't anxious to do it, but after a bit, he agreed not to make the affidavit for a week; M'LENNON gave him 10s. that day, and the Monday night after Dan and I went down M'LENNON's and he gave Dan another 5s.; we drank a few shilling of it between us.
Mr. Montgomery--Who was it took out the writ against M'LENNON?
M'CABE--A Mr. BEABE, a merchant in Dublin.
Mr. Montgomery--I think LEDDY has left himself in a very awkward position.
Mr. Armstrong--He took a bribe to withhold the administration of justice. He admits himself that he got the money.
LEDDY--My allegation is that it's no debt; you can't make it out cash lent.............
The Chairman said it would be necessary for the Court to retire and consider their decision.....Their Worships after a lengthened consultation, returned into Court, and the Chairman said--Myself and my brother magistrates are unanimously of opinion that the sum claimed in the process does not come under the meaning of the Act, and we accordingly dismiss the case. The magistrates have also expressed a wish that I, as Chairman here today, should bring this matter before the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, for we consider that the conduct of LEDDY, as an officer of the Court, has been most reprehensible. We would order M'CABE his expenses, only that we consider he has been, to some extent, an accessory--(to the Clerk)--you will keep the process and the letter, and let M'CABE's evidence be taken down....
A CAUTION
A little girl named Catherine M'MANUS summoned Bridget LEDDY for 6s., amount of half-year's wages, from the 5th May to 12th November.
Mr. MULLIGAN, Master of the Workhouse, hired the little girl--who is an orphan, and "a little simple"--to the defendant, on the 5th May; she was to receive 6s. for the half-year; explained to her the sort of girl she was; on the following Tuesday, Constable M'AULEY, of Farnham station, brought back the little girl, whom he found wandering near Crossdoney; the little girl stated that the woman brought her to the workhouse on the previous day, to see her brother, and she went up to the house for that purpose, the woman remaining at the gate; on her return the woman was gone, and, on hearing this statement, the guardians directed that the woman should be summoned.
The defendant alleged that the girl was not able to mind the cows, or nurse a little child of a quarter old; and that she told her she was subject to a pain in the back, and if she fell could not rise again; and under these circumstances, she sent her mother-in-law back with her to the workhouse.
The defendant's mother-in-law said she brought the girl back to the workhouse, but could not see the Master or Mistress; did not tell the girl that she was bringing her to see her brother; waited for a long time, but was told that Mr. Mulligan was out, and at last left the girl there. The Porter said that he was there and she did not ask for the Master.......
The Chairman told the defendant that it was her duty to have given her up the girl to the Master, for such girls should be protected, when hired out of the workhouse; however, under all the circumstances, they would dismiss the case on her paying the costs.
A SMOKER
An uncouth but honest-looking specimen of the genus "homo" whose tightly-buttoned baragon vest, profusion of elf-like red hair, and nervous gesticulations were calculated to convey no bad idea of Scott's "Dugald Creature," was charged with wife-desertion. His better--or rather--bitter half, applied for relief at the workhouse some weeks since, and stated that during the last ten years, she received only the munificent sum of 2s. 10d from her liege lord, whom she represented in a very unamiable light, and as being most enthusiastically attached to his "dudheen" (which never acted as the pipe of peace between them), and that in supplying it with the fragrant weed, he spent fifteen pence per week. The guardians admitted her on condition that she should swear informations against her spouse......The poor fellow is at present working with a farmer, and is to receive £3 for the half-year. He appeared to be in great trepidation when the Chairman informed him that he left himself liable to three months' imprisonment for leaving his wife destitute, and still more grief-stricken when told that he would not get a "draw of the pipe" in gaol.....The court finally let him off with a caution that if he does not support his wife, he'll stand a fair chance of becoming acquainted with the domestic economy of the gaol, and having an opportunity of weaning himself from his favourite tube....
SAD CASE
Sarah KEOGH was charged by Mary CRUMLEY with having assaulted her, and made use of abusive language. The defendant had two children with her--one an infant in arms, the other a fine boy, about seven years old. Complainant is a respectable looking old woman.
The Chairman read the informations of the complainant (sworn before him), which stated that on the 18th of May the defendant came to her house, abused and assaulted herself and her son, Hugh CRUMLEY, broke her window, and made use of violent threats, and that the informations were sworn through fear for her personal safety, and not through malice or revenge.....
Defendant acknowledge that she was in part guilty of what was laid to her charge, but said that Hugh CRUMLEY had assaulted her first. The reason she went to his house was that the two children with her in Court are his, and he refused to give her any assistance towards supporting them. She went to ask some assistance on the day in question, but he refused to give it. He did not give her anything during the last six months.
The Chairman said that even this circumstance did not warrant her in taking the law into her how hands.
Defendant--But he beat me, your worships, when I asked for a little assistance, and his mother helped him. Of course, I'm not able to support them myself.
Chairman--Are these your son's children, ma'am?
Complainant--He says they're not; but sure that is no reason why she should come into my house, and attack me--she has other means; and I'm afraid of my life of her, for she said she would "take a life," or "have a life," I can't say which.
Hugh CRUMLEY, complainant's son, was called. he is a middle-aged, grey-haired individual, a driver at the "Globe" Hotel. In reply to the Court as to whether the children were his, he said that "if they were, let her prove it."
Mr. Montgomery said that if the children were his, he ought to be ashamed of himself to treat them in such a manner.
Defendant said that he could not deny the children were his. He had often sent her money by others, and his mother had given her money.
Complainant said that she had given her money at different times in order to avoid her "bad tongue."
Finally, after much argument of the same kind, the Court informed the defendant that if the children belonged to CRUMLEY, and he refused to support them, she should consult an attorney, and bring her case before the Chairman of Quarter Sessions....taking the extenuating circumstances into account, they would only order her to enter into her own recognizances in the sum of £5 to keep the peace for the space seven years. The recognizances having been entered into in a formal manner, the defendant was discharged.
SERVED HIM RIGHT
Mr. Edward FEGAN summoned Edward COFFEY for injury committed by his goat to complainant's quick or hedge. Complainant stated that defendant had used most impertinent and abusive language towards him when remonstrated with about the continual trespassing of the goat.
Defendant was fined 1s. and costs, and both when paying the fine and during the hearing of the case used very insulting language towards Mr. FEGAN, when the latter said that as COFFEY persisted in his insolent demeanour he would press another summons which he had taken out against him.....for the trespass of defendant's horse on complainant's holding at Kilnavara....Defendant said that Mr. FEGAN had no right to the lane in which the horse was grazing, and stated the he would "keep a horse there in spite of him!" Mr. FEGAN said the lane belonged to him.
The Court imposed the same penalty as in the previous case....{During the hearing of the above cases the Chairman said that every morning such men as COFFEY, who have no land of their own, bring out their cattle, and let them graze along the road. If the police went out any morning along the Poor-house road, about three o'clock, they could see plenty of cattle grazing.....]
TRESPASS
Mr. William BANNON summoned Mary Anne BOYLAN for having on the 25th May, in the public streets of Cavan, used abusive and indecent language, and been guilty indecent behaviour, contrary to the provisions of the Towns Improvement Act.
Mr. BANNON deposed that defendant (who is a woman of ill-fame) came into his mother's shop, on the date stated in the summons, and asked for liquor, which he refused to give her; she then commenced to abuse to him; and when turned out of the shop, remained outside using the most filthy and abusive language; her conduct caused a crowd to gather, and interfered greatly with the business of the shop.
Defendant said that she had been drunk, and did not remember anything of the occurrence......
The Chairman, at the termination of the case, informed defendant that she had left herself liable to a fine of 40s. or one week's imprisonment, but taking into account that she had already been fined for drunkenness, they would only sentence her to 48 hours' imprisonment. Defendant applied to have a fine substituted, but her application was refused.
PROCESSES
Mr. Charles QUEALE had a civil bill process against Phillip LEDDY for 5s; against Robert DALY, of Keadue, for 10s.; and against James BRADY, of Clonervy, for 14s. 5d., the three sums being due for shop goods. Defendants did not appear, and decrees were given for the sums claimed.
Peter M'LENNON v. James NULTY
This was a civil process for money due for shop goods, sold and delivered in 1859. Complainant's wife attended, but had not her books in court, and could not tell the precise time the goods were purchased.
NULTY--It's hard for you to tell, for I never got a farthing's credit from you since the day I was born, woman.
Mrs. M'LENNON--Well, your wife did Mr. Nulty.
NULTY--I don't believe she did. I wonder you're not ashamed of yourself to bring me in here--You abominations of the earth! A parcel of reptiles that acted like ye, to process me for money.
Mr. BABINGTON--You see, NULTY, she says it was your wife got the goods.
NULTY--Then why didn't she summons my wife, and let me stop at home?
Mr. BABINGTON--Indeed, you're not very fond of coming here, Nulty.
NULTY(elevating his arms)--Why, I declare to the Lord, Doctor, I'd never come here if I wasn't sent for. The d--l a foot I'd put in here if I wasn't summoned (laughter)!
The Court informed Mrs. M'LENNON that she should produce her books in court, and postponed the case for a week to give her an opportunity of doing so.
NULTY left the court declaring that he never owed defendant a farthing since the day he first visited this busy world of care.
The Court then rose.
June 9, 1860
RECAPTURE OF AN OLD OFFENDER--On Monday the three of Termonrock Constabulary, in plain clothes, proceeded in pursuit of James HUGHES, who was to take his trial at Dungannon quarter sessions, but when on his way as a prisoner to Omagh Gaol he effected his escape from the constabulary, and continued to elude the vigilance of the police until the day in question, when after scouring the mountain district for several miles, they succeeded in starting HUGHES from his retreat in the townland of Inishatieve. After a good deal of dodging and running, he was overtaken by Constable GLEESON. HUGHES, who is a smart, athletic young man, at once grappled with his pursuer and made a desperate struggle for his liberty, but finding it impossible to re-escape the custody of his captor, he submitted to be led to the next farm-house to await the arrival of the other constables, who had run some distance in the wrong direction. HUGHES was then taken to the barrack, and finally transmitted to the gaol of Omagh on Tuesday.
CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--MONDAY
Before Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P., Chairman; William Babington, Esq., J.P.; Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., J.P.; Wm. Armitage Moore, Esq., J.P.; and W. M. Hickson, Esq., R.M.
ROAD NUISANCES
Sub-Constable SHELLY summoned Michl. SMITH for having allowed his ass to wander on the public road at Drumavanagh, on the 27th and 29th ult. Fined 6d. and costs in each case.
Constable MAGUIRE summoned Thomas FINNON for having allowed his horse to commit the same offence; the horse was grazing at the side of the public road when discovered.....Defendant was fined 2s. 6d. and costs.
Constable SHEALDS summoned Robert DALY for having allowed two asses to wander on the public road at Latt, on the 29th ult. Defendant was find 2s. 6d and costs, and informed that if found offending again in the same manner, he will have to pay a penalty of 10s.
Bernard SMITH was fined in the same amount for allowing his ass to wander on the public road at Drumalee on the 29th ult.
Sub-Constable EDWARDS summoned Richard HICKS for having allowed his horse and cow to wander on the public road at Creeghan. The Chairman hoped an example would be made of HICKS, as he is an habitual offender, notwithstanding that he had been fined on former occasions......HICKS did not appear, but was represented by a friend, who endeavoured to palliate his offence, but without success, and he was fined 5s. for the cow and 5s. for the horse, with costs.
Mr. Hickson, however, requested the other magistrates to reconsider their decision, as he did not think they could impose so heavy a penalty without sufficient evidence that HICKS turned his cattle loose for the purpose of grazing. The question was discussed at some length by the magistrates, who finally changed the penalty to 2s. each for the horse and cow, with costs....
TRESPASS
James SHERIDAN, of Drumskea, was fined 1s. and costs for trespassing on the lands of Jane PAGET, at Castletara.
ABUSIVE LANGUAGE
Mr. John MOORE, of Lisdarren, summoned Patk. BRADY, of Annagelliffe, for having, on the 25th of May, at Cavan, made use of abusive and threatening language towards him, for the purpose of intimidating him in the discharge of his duty as a cess payer. The case was postponed from last court day, on the application of defendant.
Mr. MOORE, on being sworn, deposed that on the 25th May he attended the Barony Meeting (Road Sessions) in Cavan; after the meeting was over, he was coming up the street, when he was met by defendant, who abused him in a most violent manner for having opposed a road for which he is contractor; he called him "a robber" and a host of similar names.
BRADY--I didn't call you a robber, but I said your mother robbed me. I said it was a purty recompense for you to turn round and vote against the road after your mother robbing me!
The Chairman said that if such conduct is permitted, there will be an end of all law and public justice.....The Chairman and the other magistrates also expressed regret that they had no power of punishing BRADY, and told Mr. MOORE that he could take a civil action against him. Mr. MOORE inquired if it would be any use to bring the case before the Grand Jury. The Court recommended him to do so, and the summons was then dismissed.
STEALING GRASS
Robert WOODS and James ROCHE were charged with cutting and stealing a quantity of grass, the property of Mr. James PARKER, and with assaulting Edward BRADY and Edward FINLAY.
The informations of FINLAY and BRADY stated that they observed the prisoners in Mr. Parker's field at Keadue; ROCHE was cutting the grass, and putting it into a bag, which was held by WOODS; deponents ran towards them and told them to desist, when they were assaulted by the prisoners.
Timothy DELANEY corroborated their statement.....
Mr. FINLAY and Mr. BRADY said they would not press the charge of assault.
The prisoners applied to Mr. Parker to forgive them for the robbery, as it was their first offence. Mr. Parker said he would leave them in the hands of the Court; it was not for the sake of the grass, but on principle that he appeared against them.
The Court, after a severe reprimand, said that as the charge of assault was withdrawn, they would only sentence them to 5s. fine, and costs, or a week's imprisonment. The fine was paid.
HE WHO FIGHTS AND RUNS AWAY, &c.
Edward CORCORAN processed Patrick M'GOWAN for 6s., amount of four days' work, earned while acting as an authorised bailiff under a Petty Sessions decree.
Mr. John Armstrong appeared for defendant, and contended that the case did not come within the meaning of the new act for the recovery of small debts, and consequently could not be dealt with. CORCORAN's case was that he received a decree which M'GOWAN had obtained against a man named Charles M'IVEE; he was to receive 1s for executing the decree; entered M'IVEE's house, and said he seized the chattels there under a Petty Sessions decree; did not take anything, however, because M'GOWAN, who accompanied him, was attacked by M'IVEE, and also by his wife, and saw no use in remaining to be "murdered;" M'GOWAN, as may be remembered, was severely beaten and the case was afterwards tried at Quarter Sessions, where M'IVEE was convicted of a common assault...M'GOWAN contended that he did not employ CORCORAN at all except to execute the decree; he said he would attend at the Quarter Sessions because he (M'GOWAN) did not receive "fair play from the magistrates;".....The Court gave a decree for 9d, with 5s. costs--a decision which seemed to cause the greatest astonishment and dismay to Mr. M'GOWAN.
The Court then rose.
June 16, 1860
MISCELLANEOUS
Mrs. HEALY, a vegetable vender, in Waterford city, died last week at the advanced age of 108 years.
William ELKIN, a farmer, died the other day in the Tyron Co. Infirmary from the effects of a fall while in a state of intoxication.
H. SWANZY, Esq., Castleblayney, has been appointed by Henry ROWLEY, Esq., as agent over his property in the county Monaghan.
CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--MONDAY
Before William Babington, Esq., J.P., Chairman; Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P.; Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., J.P.; Joseph Story, Esq., J.P.; Andrew Carden, Esq., J.P.; and William Murray Hickson, Esq., R.M.
Thomas M'CABE v. John M'CABE
This was a claim for wages. Plaintiff deposed that he was hired in January by defendant, for half a year--the engagement to terminate on the 14th of May; was to receive £2 3s. 6d. wages, and his washing; had to leave defendant's employment in May, in consequence of the Cavan Militia being called out for training; lost 14 days at the training; is willing to allow defendant for these days, at the same rate he was paying him for the time he was with him, but defendant wants to charge double that sum; received £1 4s. 6d. from defendant.......Defendant said that he had suffered a great loss by plaintiff leaving him.
Chairman--It was not his fault that he had to attend the training of the Militia. You would be liable to a penalty of £20 if you retained him in your service during the training, and he would be liable to six months' imprisonment if he did not attend.
Defendant said that plaintiff had been absent five days previous to the training.
Plaintiff--These were days that are holidays in our Church, your Worships, and no Catholic works on them.
A lengthened discussion took place regarding these "holidays"--one of which was Saint Patrick's Day--the peaceful, temperate Seventeenth of March. The catalogue of lost days and mutual grievances having been at length exhausted, the Court gave a decree for 13s and costs, which was paid.
Edward M'EVOY, of Dennbawn, v. Thomas SOROHAN
This was a summons for trespass of two head of cattle--one on the 24th May, the other on the 1st of June. Defendant was fine 2s. and costs.
Philip DOWD v. James MAGUIRE
Complainant hired the defendant on the 15th of May in Cavan, for half-a-year; he remained a fortnight; then asked permission to go to the house in which he worked previously, in order to get some of his clothes which he left there; he never returned.
Chairman--Why didn't you summon him sooner?
Complainant--Because I couldn't find out where he was until the other day; so soon as I did, I summoned him.
Defendant is a young land, attired in the tarnished livery of some great man's "riger." After playing with his crested buttons, and performing digital experiments upon the desk, he informed their Worships that complainant promised to allow him to go to prayers "every other Sunday"--which promise he violated; he told him that his duties would be very light, but so far from that being the case, he had to "hurd" nine cows, six heifers, some sheep and lambs, and his master threatened to make him pay for any lambs which he allowed to be lost. He was also obliged to "churn for six cows"; and, the work being so unreasonably heavy, he thought it best to look out for another master.
Plaintiff said that he would have given him liberty to go to prayers, but he ran away on the second Sunday....Finally, after hearing all that the excuses that the fertile brain of the young gentleman could invent, their Worships gave him the choice of going to gaol or returning to his work. He accepted the latter, but not without some grumbling and higgling as to conditions.
James NOLAN v. James GALLAGHER
This was a summons for trespass of two head of defendant's cattle upon complainant's holding, at Behey, on the 17th of June. Defendant pleaded that it was an accidental trespass, but, after hearing the evidence on both sides, the Court expressed a contrary opinion, and imposed a fine of 1s. and costs.
Thomas SMITH, of Shankill, v. Terence REILLY.
The summons was for a trespass upon a piece of the bog, the property of complainant, and for turning complainant's cattle off same.
Complainant deposed that the piece of bog in question had been in dispute between himself and the defendant; Mr. Thomas REILLY, the under-agent, to whose arbitration the dispute had been left, gave the piece of bog to him; on the day named in the summons he put his ass to graze on it, and tied him there, but defendant came and turned the ass off the bog; saw him do so, and told him to leave the bog, but he refused and called complainant "out of his name."
Upon cross-examination by Mr. John Armstrong, who appeared for defendant, complainant admitted that Mr. Reilly did not go to see the piece of bog; and he had made no award in writing; that it was Mr. Charles BELL, the bailiff, who viewed the bog; and that he (complainant) had never occupied the bog previous to Mr. Reilly's award.
Defendant and his brother swore that the piece of bog off which the former turned complainant's ass is not the one which was submitted to Mr. Reilly for arbitration....The Court dismissed the case on the merits.
James REILLY v. Patrick BRADY
This was an assault case. The complainant is a lad of about fourteen or fifteen years of age. His head was ornamented with a piece of sticking plaster, the result of a blow with a spade handle, inflicted by the defendant, a good-humoured looking and rather handsome boy, apparently some five or six years younger than complainant. The spade was produced by complainant's father and the handle was stained with the blood of his son. Mr. Thompson said that when complainant came to him on the date of the assault, the wound in his head looked very bad, and bled profusely......
Defendant's version of the scuffle was that he was trying to mend the mearing ditch between the holdings of his mother and complainant's father; complainant sought to prevent him, and take the spade from him; complainant gave him two or three kicks in the belly; he did not intend to strike complainant with the spade, but he was struck with it accidentally when trying to wrest it from him.....
After hearing the evidence on both sides, and the comments of the parents on the respective characters and dispositions of the youthful combatants, their Worships dismissed the case, defendant paying the costs and receiving a reprimand and caution against quarrelling in future.
James NULTY, of Shankill v. John GRAY
Complainant deposed that defendant's goat trespassed on his oats, and was injuring his quicks, on the 24th and 25th May, and 2nd June; turned the goat off his land, and demanded trespass of defendant.
Defendant--You never did--I'll take my oath you never did! Defendant's wife (leaping upon the table, and twirling her liege lord's beaver)--Oh, never--he never did!
Nulty--Why, bless my soul, I'll not get leave to speak a word!
Chairman--Did you demand trespass?
Nulty--(solemnly and confidentially)--I did--I did!
Here a torrent of contradictory asservations and uncomplimentary epithets where hurled by the shareholds of the goat at the uncompromising Nulty....
No evidence of the goat's innocence having been produced, his proprietor was ordered to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. and costs--an order which he exhibited considerable reluctance to comply with.
Bernard SMITH v. Felix M'KERNAN
This was a complaint of injury done to complainant's crop of oats by the trespass of two head of defendant's cattle twice on the 3rd and twice on the 7th of June. When asked for "trespass," defendant gave complainant the "height of (illegible) couched in the lowest of language, and a challenge to fight, which he declined.
M'KERNAN--I didn't say a word to you until you took off your coat to fight me.
SMITH--It's false! I didn't give him the slightest provoke--not a bit of provoke!
Defendant was fined 5s. and costs.
The Court then rose.
BIRTHS
On the 9th inst., at Platten Hall, Co. Meath, the wife of John GRADWELL, Esq., of a daughter.
June 12, at Corballis, county Meath, the wife of George J. ALLMAN, LL.L., of a daughter.
MARRIED
June 14th, at Moyliscar Church, by the Rev. George Morley DENNIS, the Rev. Thomas G. J. PHILLIPS, M.A., eldest son of Captain PHILLIPS, J.P., Glenview, Co. Cavan, to Charlotte Maria, daughter of Edward LEWIS, Esq., J.P., Violetstown House, Co. Westmeath.
DEATHS
On the 2nd June, in the 29th year of his age, Thomas HUNTER, son of the late John HUNTER, Esq., of Baillieborough, deeply regretted by all who knew him.
June 10, at his residence, Clonee House, county Meath, Hugh HANBURY, Esq., after a short illness, aged 75 years, deeply and deservedly regretted by a large circle of relatives and friends.
Lord Henry LOFTUS has left Loftus Hall for Ely Lodge, Enniskillen, where he will remain for a short period.
James L. NAPER, Esq., Mrs. and Misses NAPER have left the Bilton Hotel for London.
The court-martial which has been for some time sitting in Longford, for the trial of Dr. GWYDIR, has terminated its proceedings. The decision will not be made public until after it has been approved or disapproved of by the Lord Lieutenant.
CORONER'S INQUEST--DROGHEDA, TUESDAY--On yesterday evening an inquest was held by Mr. MARTIN, the coroner for the county Meath, on view of the body of James CONWAY, who died on Sunday, the 27th ult., having been disinterred, a post mortem examination was made by Drs. DELAHOYDE and FULHAM, in the burial ground of Donore, the result of which was the finding that the bones of the neck were broken, which according to Dr. Delahoyde's evidence was sufficient to cause death. There was no evidence as to the cause of the fracture, but it is supposed that in passing through an archway on a car, he occupied the driver's seat, struck his head against a cross-beam, and thus sustained the injury which resulted in death. The jury, after some deliberation, handed in a verdict in accordance with the doctor's testimony
COUNTY OF CAVAN
DIVISION OF CAVAN
A LIST of APPLICATIONS received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking
EXCISE LICENSES
for the Sale of BEER, SPIRITS, &c.,....
CAVAN,ON MONDAY, the 25th of June, 1860, immediately after the Grand Jury shall have been sworn:--
NO. NAME RESIDENCE PARISH BARONY 1. DONOHOE, Philip Dublin-street, Ballyjamesduff Castleraghan Castleraghan 2. M'TEIGUE, Patrick Carlsugh, Townland of Templeport Tullyhaw 3. PATTERSON, Arthur Kilconey Drumlane Lower Loughtee 4. WYNNE, James Dowrs Killinaugh Tullyhaw 5. WALSH, Patrick Mullelogher Anna Tullygarvey GUSTAVUS TUITE DALTON
Clerk of the Peace, County Cavan
Cavan, 5th June, 1860
COUNTY OF CAVAN
DIVISION OF COOTEHILLA LIST OF APPLICATIONS received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking
EXCISE LICENSES
for the Sale of BEER, SPIRITS, &c.
BAILIEBOROUGHON FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 1860
NO. NAME RESIDENCE PARISH BARONY 1. COONEY, Philip Market-square, Bailieborough Bailieborough Clonkee 2. CLARKE, John Town of Mullagh Mullagh Castleraghan 3. FAY, Bernard Market-Street, Cootehill Drumgoon Tullygarvey 4. M'CABE, Bernard Market-Street, Cootehill Do. Do. 5. M'KENNA, Owen Bridge-Street, Cootehill Do. Do. 6. O'CONNELL, Nicholas Virginia Lurgan Castleraghan 7. OWENS, Thomas Market-Square, Bailieborough Bailieborough Clonkee 8. SHIELS, John Kingscourt Enniskeen Do. GUSTAVUS TUITE DALTON
Clerk of the Peace, County Cavan
Cavan, 8th June, 1860
June 23, 1860
CO. MEATH
NAVAN, JUNE 16--BLOODY AFFRAY WITH THE KNIFE--On yesterday, P. P. METGE, Esq., J.P., held an investigation relative to a bloody affray which took place with knives in this town on last Thursday evening, when a man named Michael GALLAGHER received five wounds on the head and face. Of so serious a nature were the wounds, that the unfortunate man was conveyed to the infirmary, where he is attended by Dr. HAMILTON, and lies in a most dangerous condition. It appears that five men from Tullaghanstown Bog were in one of the public houses of this town on the above evening, when a quarrel ensued amongst them.--Blows were first freely dealt, and the party being heated by liquor, knives were drawn. Two of the combatants ran into the street, when Thomas NOLAN inflicted the wounds described on the person of GALLAGHER. The informations of the latter were duly taken by Mr. METGE, who remanded NOLAN until the 22nd inst., in consequence of the doctor being unable to pronounce the wounded man out of danger......It is very much feared in Navan to-day that the wounds on GALLAGHER will terminate fatally.
CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--MONDAY
Before Theopilus Thompson, Esq., J.P.; W. Babington, Esq., J.P..; John G. Tatlow, Esq., J.P.' Andrew Carden, Esq., J.P.' and William Murray Hickson, Esq., R.M.
Constable M'CARTHY, of Stradone, brought before the Court a circumstance connected with a case in which he was concerned some months since. A woman named MORGAN swore informations against a very old man named BRADY. He appeared at the Petty Sessions to answer the charge against him, but the prosecutrix did not appear, and he was accordingly bound over to attend from Petty Sessions to Petty Session until discharged in due course of law. Nothing was heard of the prosecutrix until last week, when she applied for and obtained admission to the Cavan Workhouse. Constable M'CARTHY wished to know what course their Worships intended to pursue in the matter. After consulting for some time, the Court decided upon issuing a warrant for the apprehension of MORGAN, and directed the constable to serve notice upon the defendant to attend next Monday.
LOVING NEIGHBOURS.
James NOLAN v. James GALLAGHER
Complainant deposed that six of defendant's ducks trespassed upon his holding at Behey on the 11th, 12th, and 13th of June.
Defendant made a long, rambling statement, showing that the geographic position of his own and complainant's territories offered facilities to ducks of a roving disposition to trespass and that no care on his part could prevent them doing so. He had a cross case against NOLAN for allowing two asses and one heifer to trespass upon his land--the asses on the 11th, and the heifer on the 12th June. His evidence in this case was substantiated by his father, but both admitted that they did not demand "trespass" of defendant....
At the termination of the case, and after several reprimands to NOLAN to maintain a somewhat more respectful and silent demeanour than he seemed inclined to adopt, the Chairman said that as GALLAGHER had not demanded "trespass," as required by the Act, they would dismiss the case. In the case of NOLAN against GALLAGHER they would impose a fine of 6 pence. He also recommended they to live somewhat more like Christians, and not to be so found of law.
John SMITH v. William WIDDOWS
Defendant was summoned for having refused to deliver possession of a portion of a house in the Main-street, of which he was tenant to plaintiff, from week to week, at 2s per week, which tenancy expired by notice to quit and demand for possession
Defendant said he never refused to give up possession to Mr. Smith, for he never asked him to do so. His rent was always ready when called for. Mr. Smith said he directed the Summons-Server to demand possession. The Summons-Server said he did do so, and WIDDOWS refused.
WIDDOWS said he did not like to deliver possession to any one except the landlord.....The Court gave a decree for possession, defendant being allowed seven days to provide himself with another tenement.
John SMITH v. Daniel MAGUIRE
This was a claim for possession of a portion of the same house, held by defendant at a rent of 3s a week....Decree for possession given.
Constable SHEALDS v. Michael DONOHOE
Defendant's horse was found grazing on the public road on the 10th instant. The Court imposed a fine of 2s. and costs, and said they were determined to put a stop to road nuisances.
Constable M'CARTHY v. Ellen BRADY
Eight head of defendant's cattle were found wandering on the public road at Lavey. Fine 4s. and costs.
Patrick SMITH v. Michael SMITH
This was a process for £6 7s. 5d., balance of £7 5s., amount of one year's wages from the 1st of June, 1859, to the 14th of May, 1860.
Defendant did not deny the debt--all he sought was "a little time to pay it."
The Chairman said they had no power to allow him any time; they should give a decree for the amount claimed, and he must throw himself on the mercy of the plaintiff.
The Court then rose.
MARRIED
June 14th, at St. John's Church, Hyde Park, London, by the Rev. M. D. FRENCH, M.A., the Baron Von Barnekow, to Anna YOUNG, sister of the Right Hon. Sir John YOUNG, Bart., of Bailieborough Castle, Co. Cavan. After the ceremony a select party of friends and relations assembled at the bride's residence, 38 Cambridge Terrace, Hyde Park, and partook of a sumptuous "dejeuner," furnished in their best style by Messrs. BRIDGMAN, the eminent confectioners of Wigmore-street. Amongst the company assembled were Lady Virginia and James SAUNDERS, jun., Esq.; Mrs. General SCOTT; Lieutenant-Col. DONNELLY, of Addiscombe College; Lieutenant DONNELLY, R. E.; the Right Hon. Sir John and Lady YOUNG; Mr. and Mrs. HEWITT; Mrs. THOMPSON, of Underly Hall, &c. &c. In the afternoon the happy couple started for Dover, enroute for Antwerp and Brussells, where they mean to sojourn for a short time previous to taking up their residence at Potsdam, in Prussia.
DIED
At Carrigallen, on the night of the 19th inst., the Rev. John FISHER, deeply and deservedly regretted by a large circle of friends, as well as by all who knew him. The respect in which he was held, by all classes of the community, was clearly manifested by the very unusually large multitude which accompanied his remains, on Thursday morning, to their last resting place, in the cemetery adjoining the Presbyterian Church, which was erected many years ago through his instrumentality, and in connection with which he has since faithfully discharged the duties of the ministry.
Edmond R. NUGENT, Esq., of Bob's Grove, has been appointed a magistrate for the county Cavan.
RUMOURED DEATH OF DELANY--We have heard that DELANY, who had been absconding since the murder of Mr. ELY, died recently, and in the vicinity of the scene of blood--in fact, at his own house. If our information be correct, DELANY, after the occurrence, made his way in safety as far as the Silvermines, about five miles from this town, and took refuge in the works, continuing concealed under ground day and night, unless when he would occasionally venture out of his hiding place for a short time with some of the miners. Here he remained until a week or two past, when he took ill with fever of a dangerous type, and his malady assuming an alarming appearance, he was removed to his own house, where he is said to have died a few days ago.--Ibid.
DEATH IN THE BOTTLE--Friday, Edward D. ATKINSON, coroner, held an inquest on the body of Edward CORDNER, victualler, of Armagh, who died suddenly on Thursday morning. It appeared from the evidence that he had been suffocated whilst lying in a state of intoxication. The jury returned a verdict of death from suffocation, the cause being intoxication.--ULSTER GAZETTE
June 30, 1860
CAVAN QUARTER SESSIONS
The Summer Quarter Sessions for this division of the county commenced on Monday last, before P. M. MURPHY, Esq., Q.C., Chairman of the County of Cavan.
The following Magistrates occupied seats on the Bench with his Worship:--Wm. Humphreys, D.L.; Robert Burrowes, D.L.; William Babington, David Fielding Jones, Theophilus Thompson, Andrew Carden, Robert Erskine, Captain Phillips, Captain Cumming, _____ Slade, ______Venables, &c.
The Court having been opened with the usual formalities.
The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:--Edward KENNEDY, Foreman; Jas. MORROW, James KILROY, Philip SMITH, Francis M'CABE, Henry DOUGLAS, F. E. HUDDLESTON, John MURPHY, John PRUNTY, John DAVIS, Geo. GRAHAM, Edward FEGAN, John DOHERTY, John MOORE, and Phillip SMITH, Esqrs.
The indictments were handed to the Grand Jury, who retired to their room, and his Worship proceeded to dispose of the
INSOLVENT CASES
The first called was that of (illegible) MORROW, Belturbet. Mr. M'GAURAN appeared for the insolvent.
Mr. James ARMSTRONG opposed on behalf of Mr. Bernard FITZPATRICK.
The insolvent was Post-master of Belturbet for eight years--receiving at first a salary of £30, which was afterwards raised to £50 per annum. Mr. FITZPATRICK was one of the securities. The insolvent became a defaulter to the Post-office to the amount of £102. He was requested to resign, and his securities were sued for the amount of his defalcation, of which Mr. FITZPATRICK had to pay £31, and subsequently took proceedings against the insolvent, and had him arrested.
After the examination of the insolvent, and hearing the statements on both sides, his Worship ordered the insolvent to be discharged--Mr. NATURUEL, of Belturbet (one of the creditors) to act as assignee.
James LYONS was the next insolvent called. He is a grocer and spirit dealer, carrying on his business in the Main-street, Cavan, since 1857. His liabilities amount to £719 19s. 2d.
Mr. TULLY opposed on behalf of John and Bernard BRADY. Mr. Jas. Armstrong opposed on behalf of Messrs. MURTAGH, Brothers.
Mr. Edward M'Gauran appeared for the insolvent.
Various charges--surreptitious sale of property and goods since his arrest, concealment of goods, forgery, &c.--were made against the insolvent, but at the conclusion of the case,
His Worship said LYONS had been before him on two occasions, and his case very fully gone into.....Not a single charge against him had been sustained in any shape or form. He should, therefore, be discharged.
Owen M'INTYRE--There was no opposition to this insolvent, and he was accordingly discharged.
Bernard DUFFY was opposed, but Mr. Knipe, who appeared for him, applied to have his petition dismissed, as he was entitled to do so by the Act. The application was granted, and the insolvent sent back to prison.
Peter M'LENNON, grocer and spirit dealer, Bridge-street, was next called. The insolvent's petition was dismissed at last Quarter Sessions.
Mr. Knipe and Mr. Tully appeared for M'Lennon; Mr. James Armstrong and Mr. Edward M'GAURAN for the opposing creditors.
Mr. Knipe said that at last Quarter Sessions his Worship dismissed the petition because M'Lennon's father would not give up, for the benefit of his son's creditors, his interest in a farm of land which he holds under Lord Lanesborough, at Shankill. It was then stated that the insolvent had an interest in this farm, but the lease would be produced, and would show that he had no such interest....The lease was examined, and bore out this statement, but the insolvent stated that at the time of his marriage his father promised to give him six acres of the land at Shankill. He did not keep his promise, however.....His Worship offered to allow the case to stand until next day, in order that the creditor might try if they could get the schedule amended in any way....After considerable argument, his Worship said he would discharge the insolvent, and allow the creditors to appoint an assignee....The insolvent was discharged.
CHARGE AGAINST A PROCESS SERVER
Mr. Thompson, J.P., brought before the Court the circumstances as connected with the charge against LEDDY, a process officer, for taking a bribe from M'LENNON, the insolvent just discharged, on the understanding that he would withhold the execution of a decree at that time....His Worship examined LEDDY and M'CABE, and the case occupied a considerable time; at its termination, his Worship administered a most severe caution to LEDDY, telling him that if such conduct was permitted there would be no security to the public. The magistrates had acted most properly in bringing the case before him, but they had also interceded for LEDDY, and, in mercy to him, requested that he might not be dismissed from his office. He should accordingly be leniently dealt with, in hopes that it would be a warning to him and all like him for the future.
UNFOUNDED CHARGES.
Mr. Benjamin Armstrong, Crown Solicitor, said that he wished to bring under his Worship's notice certain gross and unfounded charges brought against the officer of the Court by a Patrick REILLY, of Ballinagh. He saw Mr. REILLY in the gallery a few minutes before, but as soon as he noticed that he (Mr. Armstrong) was about to address the Court, he walked away. The charges were very gross, indeed, and he did not know but the Court itself was implicated. He therefore prayed his Worship to have Mr. Reilly called, and let him substantiate his accusations or bear the odium attending a misaccuser.
Patrick REILLY was then called three or four times, but did not answer, and his Worship said he would send for him. The Sheriff was accordingly sent for him, but he refused to attend.....His Worship said that he had no power under the circumstances to compel Mr. Reilly's attendance....After a few further remarks, the matter dropped.
CRIMINAL CASES
Ellen M'DERMOTT was indicted for having on the 12th of May, 1860, at Cavan, stolen a pair of blankets, the property of Jane M"GUINNESS. Evidence having been heard, his Worship charged the jury, telling them that it seemed to him the identification was not sufficiently clear in the case....He considered that though the case might be one of suspicion, the evidence was not sufficiently strong against the prisoner. The jury returned a verdict of acquittal.
William SMITH was indicted for having, at Newross, on the 13th of November, with others riotously assembled and committed a riot; with having, at the same time and place, assaulted one Owen M'GOVERN so as to endanger his life; with having assaulted him so as to do him serious bodily harm; and with having been guilty of a common assault upon the said Owen M'GOVERN and John M'HUGH.
Mr. M'GOVERN is a water bailiff in the employment of Dr. SHEALDS, owner of a salmon weir at Newross. He was on duty with CASSIDY and M'HUGH on the night of 13th Nov. when they saw (illegible) pulling a net out of the river. On seeing the bailiffs the poachers endeavoured to run away, but one man was caught and kept in custody, and the prisoner and another man returned to effect a (illegible) when he struck M'GOVERN in the face with a stone and broke his leg with a blow of another. He was under medical treatment for four or five months, during a portion of which (according to Dr. HOPE, who attended him) his life was in danger, and he is still lame. The case was clearly proved......The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all the counts except the common assault on John M'HUGH. His Worship sentenced the prisoner to eight months' imprisonment.
Hugh M'CABE was charged with an assault upon his mother, but the old woman applied to the Court and stated that she did not wish to press the charge if her son engaged not to molest her. The prisoner said he was willing to do so, and he was discharged from custody on entering into his own recognizances in the sum of 10l. to keep the peace for seven years.
John LEONARD and Martin FAHY were charged with having at Killeshandra, on the 8th of May, stolen 15l., the monies of Edward REILLY. A second count charged them with having 2l. 10s. of the money in their possession, well knowing it to be stolen.
LEONARD, on being asked to plead, applied a rather dingy-looking napkin to his eyes, and making a mercurious effort at crying, sobbed that he was "guilty of taking it from another little boy, not knowing it to be stolen--oh, no, sir!"
FAHY pleaded not guilty.
REILLY is a butcher, and in looking on at a street quarrel in Killeshandra, he noticed the prisoners standing by. When the row was over, his money was gone. He told the police of the robbery, and was directed to watch for the thieves, whom he afterwards found together.. On being caught, a sovereign and a half dropped out of LEONARD's mouth, and a note with REILLY's name on it was found in FAHY's pocket.....The jury found the prisoners guilty.
Mr. G. R. GALOGLY, Governor of Cavan Gaol, stated that FAHY had been convicted on a former occasion of larceny, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. He knew of no former conviction against LEONARD, but he had been in the habit of visiting pickpockets in jail, and waiting for them until they were discharged. Sub-Inspector NAPIER believed LEONARD to be the leader of a gang of pickpockets.. His Worship sentenced both prisoners to 12 months' imprisonment.
Edward and Mary BRADY were charged with having, on the 13th of May, stolen two pieces of bacon, value 10s., the property of Mr. Matthew LOUGH, Cavan. No evidence was offered by the Crown, and the prisoners were discharged.
The Court then rose.
TUESDAY
His Worship estreated the recognizances of a man named GALLIGAN, charged with waylaying and assault, who escaped to America. If the accused be produced at next Quarter Sessions, the order will be rescinded.
PARKER v. JOHNSON.
Mr. James Armstrong said he appeared for the defendant. It was an action brought for dilapidation of a house belonging to the plaintiff in the Main-street of Cavan, formerly held by Mr. JOHNSTON. He applied to the Court to have the case postponed until next Quarter Sessions, as Mr. JOHNSTON is now in England, and could not attend.
Mr. Knipe opposed the application on the part of plaintiff, who has been at great loss through the manner in which the house was left. If Mr. Johnston choose to go on a tour of pleasure, that is no reason why Mr. Parker should suffer. He could have let the house but for the manner in which it was dilapidated.
His Worship said he should postpone the case, and if Mr. Parker proves Mr. Knipe's statements at next Quarter Sessions, it will, of course, be considered in assessing damages.
Mr. Knipe--Very well, your Worship. You'll not forget that?
Chairman--Certainly not.
The Ulster Bank v. Bernard BRADY
Mr. James Armstrong--I appear for the Ulster Bank in this case. It is an action brought to recover £20, the amount of a draft or bill of exchange, bearing date of the 21st Nov., 1859, a man named GALLAGHER being the acceptor. Your Worship had it investigated by a jury of three at the last Quarter Sessions, and they found that though the name Bernard BRADY was not in defendant's handwriting, yet he had given LYONS authority to write it, and adopted the bill by going to the Ulster Bank to try and get it renewed. [Witnesses examined and cross-examined} His Worship gave a decree for £20.
John LEATHAM v. Thomas REILLY
This was a process brought to recover the value of a land roller, lent to the late Captain O'REILLY, of Annagh, defendant being his executor.
The plaintiff was examined as to the circumstances under which he lent it. He could not tell the value of the roller, but was willing to abide by any decision defendant himself would make. Mr. REILLY said he believed defendant did lend a kind of a roller to Captain REILLY's niece, but the Captain got it mounted. He considered it could be worth more than 10s., when plaintiff let it.
His Worship gave a decree, by consent, for 10s.
Owen MURRAY v. John SHEALS
This was a process for damages sustained by defendant selling a cow to plaintiff for £6 7s. 6d., engaging it to be all right and sound, but which was blind of an eye, and had two defective tits.
His Worship empanneled a jury of three farmers.--Plaintiff deposed that he bought the cow in Ballyhaise for the sum above stated; defendant engaged the cow, but the cow had two defective tits, and was blind of an eye; asked defendant to take the cow back when the defect was discovered, but he refused to do so; discovered the defect on the day of the sale; "canted" the cow for £4 17s; defendant was at the same and bid £5 for the cow; another man bid £5 10s; but refused to take it; defendant is a jobber, and brother-in-law to plaintiff.
Cross-examined--Mr. SMITH was the auctioneer; gave him no money; the purchaser paid the auction fees; my wife did not say that defendant was only after buying the cow himself on the day he sold it to me; defendant did not say so himself; there was no one present at the time the engagement was give.
Defendant denied the engagement, and stated that he bought cow that day himself....
Chairman--Well, gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the evidence, and it's for you to say if there was an engagement given..After consulting for some time, they said they were of opinion that a regular engagement was not given with the cow.
John M'GOVERN v. Owen GILROY
Plaintiff sought to recover £2 15s., the value of a web of frieze given to the defendant to "thicken" in October last, but which he converted to his own use.
Plaintiff deposed that he gave the web to defendant in order to have it thickened; defendant carries on that business; it was dark brown frieze--a very fine web; it was worth 5s. 6d. a yard. the initials J.I.M. were on it; and some threads of white yard on the end....
John GILROY, son of defendant, showed his account book; an entry (233) stated that Shan Fadh M'GOVERN--the name by which plaintiff is known--left a web of frieze to be thickened on the 18th of October; the frieze had the initials J.M.I. on it; the web produced is the one left by M'GOVERN; is willing to have the case stand until the Bawnboy Sessions; his father is an old man--85 years of age--and could not attend here, but he will at Bawnboy, if the case is sent there.
His Worship said he would leave the case to Mr. David FINLAY, Bawnboy. Both parties consented.
John M'GOVERN v. Wm. BUCHANAN
This was a process for recovery of 3l. 10s., the price of a heifer. Plaintiff sent three heifers to graze on defendant's land; one of them died, as he contended, in consequence of insufficiency of food. He did not get any word that the heifer was sick until the day it died. He did not see it after its death; but the other two heifers were in a state of starvation when he removed them.
Robert TAYLOR, defendant's herd, deposed that the cattle grazing on his master's land had plenty of hay and grass to eat, and that the heifer died of big gad (sic)......
The jury gave a decree for 3l. 5s, and stated that they considered there was no neglect on part of defendant personally.
The business of the Sessions terminated on Thursday morning, when his Worship proceeded to Cootehill.
BIRTH
On the 25th inst., the wife of A. COLLUM, Esq., solicitor, Enniskillen, of a daughter.
MARRIED
On the 19th inst., at St. Anne's Church, by the Rev. P. BROWN, William Percival O'NEILL, Esq., of Carlow, to Mary, eldest daughter of the late Christopher John M'CABE, Esq., of Moate, Co. Westmeath.
DIED
On the 25th inst., John HODSON, Esq., of Johnsport, Co. Roscommon, aged 85.
On the 23rd inst., after a short illness, at the residence of her son-in-law, T. BATTLEY, Esq., 13 Ely-place, Dublin, Mrs. NANGLE, of Newhaggard, Co. Meath, Aged 85.
On the 23rd inst., at Sandymount, Jane, widow of the late Andrew CLANDENIN, of Oakhill, in the county of Cavan, Esq., aged 79.
INQUEST--Dr. Kirwan, city coroner, held an inquest on Tuesday, on view of the body of Bridget CAVANAUGH, the wife of Thomas CAVANAUGH, the traverser who was convicted at the Commission of Oyer and Terminer of being a party to an unlawful assemble and wrecking of the house of Ellen SHERWOOD, at 4 Taylor's-court, Townsend-street, on the night of the 7th of May last. It will be recollected that the husband of deceased, Thomas CAVANAGH, was sentenced by Baron HUGHES to six months' imprisonment. The deceased went out on Monday with her sister for the purpose of obtaining signatures to a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to a mitigation of the sentence of her husband. From the evidence of her sister, Mary CURRAN, it appeared that she was greatly affected; the shock which her system experienced induced something like epilepsy; she fell in Townsend-street, and shortly afterwards died. Surgeon Count de Kavanagh was called on, but on his arrival the deceased was in "articulo morvis." Surgeons Kavanagh George Porter were examined, and their testimony was to the effect that deceased died from effusion on the brain, the result of an epileptic fit brought on by the shock experienced by the general system. The jury found a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence, recommending the four children of deceased to the consideration of the authorities.--"Saunders"
County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project
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.