Published in Cavan, county Cavan
March 3, 1860
CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--MONDAY
Before Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P.; William Babington, Esq., J.P.; and Andrew Carden, Esq., J.P.
Stephen FLOOD v. Thomas KING
The complainant in this case is a young lad, who was hired from the Cavan Workhouse by defendant, on the 14th instant, complainant being up to that period an inmate of the workhouse.--The engagement was from the above date to the 14th of May next, and he was to receive 16s. for his services during that period. He gave a long account of the ill-treatment which he had received from defendant, having been beaten, thrown across a stool, required to do work beyond his power to perform, &c., and was finally turned off by defendant, who threw his clothes out of the house, and refused to give him his breakfast on the day he turned him away, and threatened to set his dog at him if he did not "leave from about his place."
Chairman (to defendant)--Is this all true, sir?
Defendant--A great deal of it is totally untrue, sir.
Chairman--Well, let us hear your version of the affair.
Defendant was then sworn, and after stating the terms upon which he hired complainant--which were as above given--he said Stephen conducted himself pretty well for the first week; on Saturday, however, he commenced his bad behaviour by refusing to assist in carrying in potatoes or in filling the baskets; the baskets would not hold more than a stone of potatoes and he was well able to carry them, if he chose;....on Monday morning defendant asked him to go out and look after the cows, but he refused, and began rubbing his arm, saying--"Won't you give me time to scratch myself"; defendant told him that it was not to idle his time and refuse to work that he had hired him, and that he should conduct himself better....he went off to Arvagh that day, without defendant's permission, to see his sister, who lives there, threatening when going, that if ever defendant came into the town of Arvagh he would have him beaten....he came back again, however, that evening crying, and told defendant's wife that he was sorry for having gone away, and would conduct himself in a proper manner during the remainder of his time; defendant then took him back; on the following (Tuesday) morning, defendant brought him out to assist in trenching potatoes, and shoved up the clay after him....
The Chairman inquired of the Porter of the Workhouse (who appeared on the part of the Guardians), what character complainant bore while in the Workhouse. The Porter gave him a very negative sort of character--saying that he was not very good; nor neither was he very bad....The Chairman said he was afraid complainant had conducted himself very improperly, and was a bad boy.
Stephen denied this...The Chairman asked if defendant would take him back. Defendant said he would, if the Court ordered him for to do so, or if the boy would conduct himself. Stephen said he would go back, if the Court ordered defendant not to beat him.
The Chairman said defendant had not right to beat him. He should go back to his service, and if he misconducted himself, defendant could summon him. Should he do so, and prove his case, Stephen would forfeit all his wages, and be sent to gaol, where he would be flogged. He therefore recommended him to be a good by.
George ARMSTRONG v. Catherine GIBEON
The defendant in this case was charged with having unlawfully left the service of complainant. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for the complainant, whose wife, he said, could prove the case.
Mrs. Armstrong on being sworn, stated that she hired the girl from the 12th of November to the 14th of May, and she was to give her 30s. wages for that time; of this sum she had give her 10s., in money and goods; a few afterwards she was hired, the girl said she should go home for her clothes; gave her permission to do so; brought her in from Ballyhaise to Cavan on her car and then sent the car and servant boy with her to her mother's residence--a distance of 13½ miles; She came back again, when she had got her clothes, and conducted herself very well for two months; at the end of that time she said she was sick and witness recommended her to go to bed; she did so, and remained in bed for several days, during which time witness showed her every attention, paying the medicines, &c.; on the Saturday morning after she had complained of illness she seemed entirely recovered; she said she would not rest in bed any longer, but would go home to her mother;.......The defendant was not in Court during the examination of Mrs. Armstrong. James MONTGOMERY deposed that he served the summons personally upon the girl in Ballyhaise.
Here the defendant came into Court, and said she had been unable to attend previously. The Chairman informed her of the charge against her--that of leaving complainant's service without any just cause.
She said this was not true. She left it because she was compelled by Mrs. Armstrong to stop up at night, washing clothes, at most unreasonable hours. She would not be allowed to wash the clothes in the daytime. That had brought on her illness, and was the reason she left complainant's service. Mrs. Armstrong said this was not true....Defendant said Mrs. Armstrong's son had beaten her and torn her bonnet........After some discussion, the Court inflicted a fine of £1,or in default of payment to be imprisoned for one month, forfeiting any wages due to her. She said she could not pay the fine, and was accordingly taken into custody.
After some consultation, however, and ascertaining that Mrs. Armstrong was willing to take her back, their Worships recalled the girl, and, having cautioned her, offered her the choice of going back to her service, and engaging to finish her time honestly, or go to prison. She preferred the latter, notwithstanding the remonstraces addressed to her.
Daniel LEDDY v. James GALLAGHER and Patrick REILLY
This was a charge of having unlawfully resisted the execution of a decree, obtained at the suit of Mr. James HARTLEY, merchant, of Cavan, against the goods of Thomas GALLAGHER (father of James GALLAGHER), of Behy, the present complainant being named special bailiff in, and authorised to execute, said decree.
Mr. John Armstrong appeared for complainant; Mr. Tully for defendants.
Complainant's statement was to the effect that having been entrusted with the decree, he went to the lands of Behy, and captured the unguarded stripper, who was quietly chewing the cud (""of sweet and bitter fancies"), in blessed ignorance of the British statute book and her owner's debts; the cow--either through respect for the law or a naturally quiet temper--made no effort to resist the execution of the decree;; he drove her out on the road, and was proceeding Cavan-wards with her, when James GALLAGHER, Patrick REILLY, and two other men, whose names he does not know, came up, rescued the captive, and drove her back to the pastures from whence she had been led....
For the defence it was contended that complainant had no right to seize the cow, as it did not belong to the defendant named in the decree, but to his son James GALLAGHER, who also owned the land, and had merely driven back his cow when he saw complainant driving it away....LEDDY was bound to show the decree authorising him to seize the cow, and explain at whose suit it was obtained, &c....
Mr. HARTLEY handed to the Chairman a copy of a letter received by him from the agent of the property on which GALLAGHER has his farm, stating that the elder GALLAGHER was always, and is still, the recognised tenant of the farm. Mr. HARTLEY said the debt (£3 10s) for which the decree was obtained was the price of cloth for young GALLAGHER's wedding-suit. GALLAGHER denied this; said he purchased his bridal togs at Mr. MURPHY's...
The Court recommended him to pay the money which he was well aware was due to Mr. HARTLEY. He refused to do so, however, and the Court decided upon taking informations, and sending the case for trial.
The charge against REILLY was withdrawn, at the suggestion of Mr. HARTLEY. GALLAGHER had a cross-summons against LEDDY, for having trespassed on his land, but it was not gone into.
Edward FEGAN v. Ellen KING
This was an application to recover possession of a house held by defendant, at a weekly rent of 1s. 3d. Service of notice to quit having been proved, a decree for possession as given.
The Court then rose.
SHERCOCK PETTY SESSIONS--FEB. 23
Before John H. Adams, Esq., J.P.; and Benjamin S. Adams, Esq., J.P.
Susan MARTIN summoned Thomas REILLY for bad treatment received during her term of service. He and his wife gave her bad usage. She was in their service since last Hollantide; on the 12th February she broke a pan, which so enraged her mistress that she abused her to great excess; in this she was joined by her husband; they both dragged her out of the house and expelled her from their service; she was willing to pay for the pan if they'd let her alone...
The defence was that she broke more articles than the pan, and was in the habit of running about the town instead of minding her business. Defendant was, however, willing to take her back; but she must behave better, and she will get no more bad treatment.
The Bench ordered that she go back in her service and get no further annoyance.
Constable STEWART, Shercock, summoned Edward HAMIL for sinking a drain along the high road so as to injure it. It was about 18 inches deep. The defendant did not appear, and was fined 5s. and costs.
Peter GINTY summoned Michael CARAHER for an assault. Complainant (who is an old man), stated very positively that CARAHER (who is a hardy fellow, somewhat discoloured with lampblack) spat in his face and knocked him down. He kicked him when down, and swore he'd kick all the "grubby" teeth in his head down his throat. He is afraid of his life of him.....
Catherine HENRY was sworn and said she saw the fight. CARAHER did all as alleged....Phill M'INTYRE gave similar testimony.
CARAHER denied in toto that he did as was alleged....The Bench considered he committed an assault, and fined him 10s. and costs or 14 days' imprisonment.
Patrick CALAGHAN and James TRAYNOR again appeared to prosecute Lawrence M'CAHILL for retaining possession of a house belonging to his deceased brother in opposition to their wishes as executors to deceased's will.
The defendant who had a cross case against them, said he had been sent for by his brother about three weeks before his death; he remained in the place for a short time after his death, when he was forcibly put out by the executors, and others they brought with them as assistants. Mr. Swanzy, who appeared for M'CAHILL, said they were not justified in doing as they had done, and gave some instances of alleged cruelty on their part... Mr. Swanzy argued that their conduct was criminal in having an auction and forcing deceased's brother out, without first having procured the letter of administration.
The Bench thought similarly, and bound the executors in large sums to appear at the next Quarter Sessions. Those who aided them had to procure bail also.
The Court shortly after rose.
DEATH OF WILLIAM GREENE, ESQ.--We regret to announce the death, after a very long illness of William GREENE, Esq., Clerk of the Crown for Westmeath, which took place on Tuesday evening at his residence, Beaufort Lodge, Kingstown. The much lamented gentleman was brother to the respected Baron Greene. His memory will be long respected by all who knew his kind, generous, and social qualities.
Mr. Sergeant O'HAGAN was on Saturday sworn in as her Majesty's Solicitor-General for Ireland, before the Lord Chancellor, at his residence, Upper Pembroke-street.
It is rumoured on very good authority that a cotton factory is to be at once commenced at Galway. The parties who have taken the buildings are from Belfast, and the premises are those lately occupied by Messrs. PERSSE and MILLER, distillers. They are situated on the verge of the lake at Newcastle, about one mile from the town, and are well supplied by water-courses ready for immediate use.
March 10, 1860
CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--MONDAY
T. Thompson, Esq., J.P., in the chair.
Other magistrates present--William Babington, Esq., J.P., and W. E. Hickson, Esq., R.M.
Margaret CAULFIELD was charged with having stolen a jacket, value 1s., the property of Ellen M'CANN, of Kenny pottle, in this county. Mr. John Armstrong appealed to the Bench on behalf of the prisoner (a wretched-looking being, with an infant in her arms), and said that she had been driven to commit the offence--her first--through poverty. She had three young children; her husband was out of work, and they were reduced to the utmost misery.--She had already been a week in gaol. There was no one to attend to her unfortunate children, except her husband, who could not work in consequence of having to do so. He (Mr. Armstrong) trusted the Court would consider that she had been sufficiently punished for the office by the week's imprisonment.
Constable M'AULEY, who arrested her, said the entire family presented a picture of the most abject misery when he went to their house.
The woman pleaded guilty to the office, and in reply to the Chairman, said she had been begging about the country, and that she had received 2s. 6d. from the Rev. Dr. HOGG to help her to pay her rent while her husband was in jail. She handed up some testimonials of her previous good character to their Worships.
The Chairman, after administering a caution, sentenced her to be imprisoned for one week, from the date of her committal. He called up her husband (who with the children) was present, and gave him a few shillings, kindly contributed by himself and brother magistrate. The woman was then discharged.
Thomas CONNOLY, James FITZPATRICK and James M'CALL were each fined 6d. and costs for having been drunk in the streets of Cavan.
Maria REILLY and Bridget M'CABE (two of the unfortunates), were charged with the same offence. The charge having been proved, the Chairman said the prisoners were irreclaimable. The inhabitants are all complaining of the conduct of this class. In a short time they would be tried under a different act of Parliament, and one which enables the Court to inflict a heavier punishment than it could at present.--They should be imprisoned for 48 hours each, or pay a fine of 5s.
Mr. LYNDON, poor-rate collector, summoned some parties for non-payment of rate, but in consequence of an error in the book, the Court dismissed the cases without prejudice.
The other cases were of a trifling nature.
The Grand Jury were sworn on Tuesday, for the transaction of fiscal and such other business as might come before them prior to the opening of the commission.
E. E. MAYNE, Esq., Secretary, was in attendance, and shortly after the swearing-in of the Grand Jury, tendered his formal resignation of the office which he has held for such a lengthened period, and the duties of which he has performed with a zeal, ability, and faithfulness highly honourable to himself, of vast advantage to the county, and eminently satisfactory to every member of the Grand Panel....The announcement of Mr. MAYNE's resignation--though not altogether unexpected--was received by the Grand Jury with expressions of regret....The Grand Jury having accepted Mr. MAYNE's resignation of the office, proceeded to elect a secretary. There were five candidates--namely, John Garnett TATLOW, Esq., J.P.' Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., J.P.; ____FOX, Esq., ____ HARMAN, Esq., and Mr. John ARMSTRONG.
The voting was as follows--
For Mr. Tatlow 14
For Mr. Fox 8
Majority for Mr. Tatlow 6
Mr. TATLOW was accordingly elected.
Dr. NUGENT, Inspector of lunatic asylums (who was after visiting several of the neighbouring counties by direction of Government), brought under the notice of the Grand Jury the necessity of providing a suitable asylum for lunatics belonging to this county, there being no further accommodation for any more of this unfortunate class beyond the present number of inmates in the district asylum at Armagh....The entire subject was very fully considered by the Grand Jury before the departure of Dr. NUGENT, and on Thursday morning after again discussing it at considerable length, the Grand Jury unanimously passed a resolution to the effect that they "considered better accommodation than that at present existing was urgently required for lunatics...., and that such accommodation should, if possible, be in the vicinity of the town of Cavan...
On Wednesday evening, Mr. GAHAN, the county surveyor brought before the Grand Jury the claims of the county surveyors to an increase of salary on the grounds of the great amount of work which they had to perform, the heavy travelling expenses which they had to incur in going to the different parts of their respective counties in inspect roads, bridges, &c. The maximum salary allowed to county surveyors by the Grand Jury Act is £300 per annum, without any allowance for travelling expenses....A select committee of the House of Commons had reported in favour of these claims. And since then, at the current assizes, several Grand Juries had adopted petitions to Parliament praying that the discretionary power above alluded to should be conferred upon them. He hoped the Grand Jury of this county would have no objection to adopt a similar petition....After some further discussion, the subject dropped, the Grand Jury declining to apply for any change in the existing law.
OPENING OF THE COMMISSION
The Commission for this county was opened at three o'clock on Thursday by the Solicitor-General, as "locum tenens" for Mr. Justice FITZGERALD, who refrained from going the north-west circuit in consequence of having prosecuted in criminal cases, as Attorney-General. His lordship was attended by Lord Farnham, K.P.; James STORY, Esq., High Sheriff of the county, and Captain the Hon. Hugh ANNESLY, M.P., as foreman of the Grand Jury.
The Clerk of the Crown having read her Majesty's Commission called over the Grand Jury panel....His lordship then briefly addressed the grand jury. ...His Lordship ten proceeded to fiat the presentments after which, the Grand Jury having returned with a portion of the bills.
Ellen BRIATY was indicted for having stolen a piece of corduroy off James FISHER's counter in Cootehill. Sentenced to four months' imprisonment from date of sentence.
A petty jury was then sworn, and
Robert NUGENT was indicted for having assaulted Arnold CLARK, at Bailieborough, on the 6th of February. There were three counts in the indictment--first for cutting, wounding of Arnold CLARKE; second, for assaulting him so as to do him bodily harm; and third, for a common assault. The assault took place in a public house, and arose out of a drunken quarrel, in the course of which the prisoner inflicted several cuts and gashes upon CLARKE with a clasp knife.....The jury could not agree up to half-past seven o'clock, and his Lordship informed that he would adjourn until ten o'clock, when he would return to ascertain their decision.....The Court then rose, but at a quarter past ten his Lordship having returned--the jury found the prisoner guilty of the last count--that of a common assault.
His Lordship entered court at half-past nine o'clock, and, after a long and eloquent address upon the nature of the crime of which he had been convicted, NUGENT to be imprisoned, with hard labour, for six months.
THE ARVAGH MURDER CASE--The panel having been called over, and a large number of jurors obtained, Owen MAGRATH was placed in the dock, charged with the wilful murder of Richard FORKES, on the 4th of November. The prisoner is a very young man, of a quiet and rather intelligent cast of countenance, and did not seem to be much affected by his awful position.
Mr. MAGAURAN stated to his Lordship that he was attorney for the prisoner. Mr. DOWSE and Mr. JOHNSTON were his counsel. Unfortunately, Mr. DOWSE had not yet arrived,and Mr. JOHNSTON had returned his brief, stating that as he was engaged in some appeal cases in the other court, which were likely to be proceeded with soon after the arrival of the Chief Baron, he could not devote his entire time to this case. He therefore hoped His Lordship would request the Chief Baron, on his arrival, to allow these appeals to stand over until the murder case had terminated.
His Lordship said he thought it would be more satisfactory to await the arrival of Mr. Dowse....[discussion about postponing the case followed]...Finally, his Lordship decided to postpone the case to the next assizes without prejudice to any appeal which might be made to the Queen's Bench on the part of the prisoner.
Catherine SHERIDAN was indicted for stealing the sum of 13l. from the person of Bernard SWEENEY. Guilty. Sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour.
John M'MANUS and James FARRELL were indicted for a riot, and also for assaulting Luke M'NAMAY, at Arva, on the 6th of January. By consent of counsel, a verdict of guilty of common assault was recorded.
His Lordship ordered the prisoners to pay a fine of 40s. each, and enter into their own recognizances in the sum of 50l.each to keep the peace for seven years.
James BROWN was indicted for attempting to extract money from the pocket of John FITZPATRICK in the town of Belturbet. Guilty. Sentenced to six years' penal servitude--being an old offender.
Patrick SHERIDAN was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for an assault upon James DONNELLY, committed at Arvagh, on the 6th of January.
John WILSON was indicted for stealing one pair of shoes and one part of brogues, the property of Henry FARIS. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
Peter COLDWELL was indicted for assaulting Robert STEPHENS. This was a most disgraceful case--the prisoner and a riotous mob of ruffians having followed him out of the town of Ballyjamesduff, and beaten him in a disgraceful manner--leaving him for dead on the road.
He was found guilty, and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, with hard labour--his Lordship regretting that the indictment had not been for inflicting "grievous" instead of "actual" bodily harm.
The Solicitor-General having finished the criminal business early in the afternoon, and the Lord Chief Baron not having arrived from Longford, took up the record business.
Captain CUMMING, appellant; Peter SMITH respondent.
This was an appeal from the decision of the Chairman at Quarter Sessions. The matter was referred to three gentlemen for arbitration, to settle the amount of compensation which the defendant should receive for improvements alleged to have been made on the premises on which he was tenant, consisting of a house in the town of Ballyjamesduff--a decree subject to the award of the arbitrators to issue for the recovery of the premises.
Miss SAUNDERSON v. LALOR
Mr. Robert JOHNSTON said in this case there was a clergyman resident in Donegal who was a principal witness, and he was bound to be home on Saturday for Sunday service, and he was afraid his testimony would be altogether lost if the case were deferred.
Mr. BROOKE, Q.C., said that if his lordship did not dispose of the case, they would lose the preparation for the whole Civil business in Enniskillen.
The court said he had some delicacy in taking up the case which stood over from the last assizes Mr. BROOKE said he appeared for the defendant and submitted that there was a fatality in the proceedings which rendered it impossible for his lordship to hear the case at all....The Court expressed an opinion in favour of the objection raised by Mr. BROOKE, and refused to hear the appeal, leaving it for the Lord Chief Baron.
WARRANTY OF A COW
This was an appeal from the decision of the Chairman. John WILSON, a cattle jobber, was the appellant, and John Henry (illegible) was respondent. A jury of three, viz.--Messrs. James REILLY, Henry FARIS, and Robert GREEN were sworn to try the case....The action was brought against the defendant for breach of warranty in relation to the sale of a cow....Several witnesses were examined both in sustainment of and against the appeal.
Mr. R. H. Doppling HARMAN, V.S., was examined as to the health of the cow. He knew the disease by which the cow was said to be affected; his opinion was that the cow died of what was called "milk fever;" a disease which might result from excitement of any kind.
His Lordship summed up, and the jury found for the plaintiff. The decree of the chairman was 10l. was affirmed.
The court then adjourned.
Monaghan, March 2.
(Before Chief Justice MONAHAN)
Francis CASSIDY was indicted for the manslaughter of Thomas WARD on the 13th of December last.
It appeared from the evidence that two persons named David WILSON and Michael MARRION were captivated by the charms of a young woman named Ellen ECCLES, and sought her hand in marriage. She had compassion upon MARRION and favoured his suit, although WILSON was much better off in the world and was considered by her friends to be a more eligible match for her. Considering herself to be the best judge on such a subject, she went on the 3d of December to the house of WARD's father to meet MARRION there, and she did meet him there. In the evening WILSON's friends came to take her back. MARRION's friends gave them battle, and in the affray WARD received a wound in his head which caused his death. It did not appear clearly who dealt the blow.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The same Francis CASSIDY and nine others were indicted for a riot on the occasion above mentioned. The prisoners submitted, and were bound in their own recognizances to appear when called upon to receive sentence.
Patrick NAUGHOR, found guilty of manslaughter, but recommended to mercy, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.
James MAGWOOD, found guilty of obtaining a watch under false pretences, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour.
This disposed of all the criminal business.
March 17, 1860
March 9th, in the blessed hope of a glorious resurrection, Margaret, aged 53, the beloved wife of John FYFE, Brankhill, near Arvagh. She was a loving wife and affectionate mother; she is much and justly regretted by all who knew her and a kind friend, a good neighbour, and benevolent to the poor, whose prayers followed her to the grave.
March 11, at Stothane, William BRADDELL, Esq., Manager of the Belfast Bank, Navan, son of G. W. BRADDELL, Esq., Belfast.
Right Hon. the Earl of Granard, K.P., her Majesty's Lieutenant for the County of Leitrim, has made the following appointments to the undermentioned ranks in the Leitrim Rifle Regiment of Militia:--
To be Second Major--Robert BLACKALL, late Captain in the 50th Foot.
To be Captain--Richard Reynolds PEYTON, late 1st Royal Dragoons, vice JOHNSTON, resigned.
To be Quartermaster--Sergeant-major Michael COSTELOE.
The following Commission has been signed by the Right Hon. the Earl of Erne, Lieutenant of the county Fermanagh:--Capel ST. GEORGE, Esq., to be Paymaster, vice Shegog, retired.
Mr. Samuel PEAKE, to be Quartermaster in the Royal Meath Regiment of Militia.
CO. FERMANAGH ASSIZES
Enniskillen, Monday, March 12
The Chief Baron opened the commission this morning at ten o'clock, when the following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:--Henry Mervyn Irvin D'ARCY, foreman; John MADDEN, Nicholas Mervyn ARCHDALL, John Gerrard IRVINE, Francis John GRAHAM, James HARE, John COLLUM, Paul DANE, Alexander, Jason HASSARD, Edward IRWIN, John BRADY, Maurice Ceily MAUDE, Alexander NIXON, James CLARKE, John CROTIER, George WOOD, John Peirse HAMILTON, Matthew Henry SANKEY, John LITTON, George C. BRACKENRIDGE, and James BENNISON, Esqrs.
Arabella CATHEART, an old woman, indicted for stealing a shirt, made a long and able defence in her own behalf. The case occupied upwards of an hour, and in the end, the prisoner having fainted, his Lordship discharged the jury, the prisoner, on her recovery, to be tried again..
Messrs. MAJOR, Q.C. and S. Y. JOHNSTON protested.
(Continued from Last Week's Observer)
The Lord Chief Baron arrived from Longford by the half-past 11 o'clock train on Saturday, and took up the appeal cases which were awaiting him.
SAUNDERSON v LALOR
This case, which was an appeal on the part of LALOR from a decree for possession of a piece of bog, was proceeded with....Patrick LALOR, the defendant was sworn and examined by Mr. M'CAUSLAND--Do you know the lands of Knockateera? I do. Are you a tenant in possessions of any portion of the lands? Yes--How much? I believe half an acre. Have you a tenant? Yes. What is his name? Felix GULSHENAN. Were you served with any ejectment in this case?--No, sir, I was not. GULSHENAN paid you rent? Yes. Who had it before you? My father. How long? As long as I remember. Were you ever recognised as tenant of any part of those lands? Yes, sir; after my father died I came in as tenant; I was in possession of that ground since my father died......
Mr. John ROGERS, J.P., examined by Mr. DOWSE--I am agent to Miss SAUNDERSON who represents the lessor in this lease; I have been her agent upwards of 16 years; my father was agent before me; I know the lands subject to this demise; I know the rent reserved in that lease; the amount I receive is £12 17s 4d. a year; I have received it for upwards of 16 years. Patt LALOR principally paid me; I never saw James LALOR to know him; Patt LALOR is in possession of the farm; there is a house on the far; his brother, sister and himself live in that house; I think one of the two brothers name is John, but I am not sure; I never heard of James claiming any interest until proceedings were instituted....
Mr. ROGERS, in the course of his examination, stated that he never heard of any promise of a new lease having been made to the LALORS by the father of Miss SAUNDERSON....Miss SAUNDERSON gave similar testimony as regards the alleged promise.
The Rev. Mr. ASHE deposed that some of the LARORs had on one occasion asked him to intercede with Mr. Saunderson for the purpose of getting a renewal of the lease, but knew of no promise having been ever made to that effect by Mr. Saunderson......
The case occupied a considerable time, and at its conclusion, his Lordship said he would reserve judgment.
March 24, 1860
COUNTY OF CAVAN
DIVISION OF CAVAN
A LIST of APPLICATIONS received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking
for the Sale of BEER, SPIRITS, &c.....to be heard and enquired into at
C A V A N
ON MONDAY, the 26th day of March, 1860, immediately after the Grand Jury shall have been Sworn.
No. NAME RESIDENCE PARISH BARONY 1. CUMMONS, James Main-street, Arva Killeshandra Tullyhunco 2. CUMMONS, James Do. Do. Do. Do. 3. DONOHOE, Philip Dublin-street, Ballyjamesduff 4. FINLAY, William No. 6, Main-street, Cavan Urney Upper Loughtee 5. KENNEDY, Edward 33, Main-street, Cavan Do. Do.
GUSTAVUS TUITE DALTON
Clerk of the Peace, County Cavan
Cavan, 6th March, 1860
COUNTY OF CAVAN
DIVISION OF CAVAN
A LIST of APPLICATIONS received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking
for the Sale of BEER, SPIRITS, &v.....to be heard and inquired into at
B A L L Y C O N N E L L
ON MONDAY, the 2nd day of April, 1860, immediately after the Grand Jury shall have been Sworn.
No. NAME RESIDENCE PARISH BARONY 1. COPELAND, John Blacklion Killinagh Tullyhaw 2. CONNOLLY, Catherine Munca Drumlane Lower Loughtee 3. CONNOLLY, Constantine Money Do. Do. 4. M'ELGUN, Anthony Upper Bridge-street, Belturbet Anna Do. 5. M'CAWLEY, Cormick Ardavagh Templeport Tullyhaw 6. SMITH, Hugh Upper Bridge-street, Belturbet Anna Lower Loughtee 7. WALLACE, John Robert Blacklion Killinagh Tullyhaw
GUSTAVUS TUITE DALTON
Clerk of the Peace, County Cavan
Cavan, 12th March 1860
CO. MEATH--MURDER AT BRANNOCKSTOWN:--An inquest was held on Friday March 16th, at Trim, before Matthew MARMION, Esq., one of her Majesty's coroners for the county of Meath, on the body of KILKENNY, the unfortunate man who lost his life while returning from a funeral on Wednesday evening, the 14th instant. Two men, named Christopher MALONE and Thomas SHORT, who had been put under arrest immediately after the dying declaration of KILKENNY, were present at the inquest, in custody of the police. It appears there was a third party at the savage murder, for the deceased's declaration named these two individuals and "one he did not know." The evidence which came out at the inquest went to show a rather important fact connected with the brutality, viz, that the sister of SHORT was found by the constabulary, when they arrested him, washing away blood-marks from a pair of trowsers her brother had thrown off him......From information gleaned from the sister of the deceased man, the police thought proper to put under arrest a man named James WALSH. He was observed by Miss KILKENNY about a quarter of any hour after the murder, in the vicinity of the place where the atrocious act was committed. The footprints about the scene of the tragedy corresponded exactly with the shoes removed by the police from WALSHE's (sic) feet; and , moreover, human hair was found on the shoes. The inquest, at the request of the jury was adjourned to Monday. The prisoners were all remanded, awaiting the finding of the jury. SHORT and WALSHE lived on the one townland; MALONE lived at Toberdinan, the residence of Mr. M'EVOY, M.P. The evidence adduced at the inquest was in some respects very difficult to be extracted, and went to show that the poor fellow KILKENNY, after being knocked down, received little mercy from the blows and brogues of his murderers. Sub-Inspector CAREY and the entire force of the constabulary of Trim deserve much credit for the speedy steps taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.
PRESENTATION--The parishioners and friends of the Rev. Samuel ROBERTS, B.A., are about to present him with a very handsome drawingroom clock and solid silver salver (purchased at Messrs. Waterhouse and Co.'s, Dublin) on his leaving Killersherdincy, county Cavan, of which he had been the faithful minister for the last 24 years, as a token of affectionate regard.
THE BRANNOCKSTOWN HOMICIDE--Trim, March 21.--The coroner's jury found a verdict of wilful murder against MALONE and SHORT. The third party, WALSH, was acquitted by the jury, but subsequently re-arrested and committed for further examination by John Edward BANNON, Esq., R.M. Mr. SEEDS, crown solicitor, attended the inquest, and it is supposed the evidence against the parties is complete.
CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--MONDAY
Before William Babington, Esq., J.P., Chairman; Robert Erskine, Esq., J.P.; and Captain Cardin, J.P.
Mr. John LYNDON summoned Mr. Michael HEEL, of Latt, for 8s 4d. arrears of poor rate. Mr. LYNDON had brought this and two other cases about a fortnight ago, but in consequence of an informality they were dismissed.....The Court decided that HELL (sic) was liable to pay the 8s. 4d.
Mr. LYNDON had a summons against a man named Philip OLWILL for 10s. arrears of poor-rate. This was a very singular case, and had been dismissed when first brought. OLWILL was charged in the valuation book this 10s. for a portion of land which is in HEEL's possession, and which he had never occupied. He had paid all his own rate and was now called upon to pay this...The Court gave a decree for the amount, but told OLWILL that he could afterwards process against HEEL.
Mr. Erskine told HEEL it would be better from him to pay the sum than have to pay it afterwards with extra costs, if proceeded against by OLWILL. HEEL declined, considering he had paid sufficient already.
A young lad was brought up in custody of Constable M'CARTHY, of Stradone, charged on the informations of Mary CUSACK, of Edregal, with having stolen two cows and two pigs, the property of her husband.
This was a very singular case. The woman who swore informations against the lad is his own sister. Their mother died about two years ago, leaving several children, of whom Mary was the eldest. She got married to a man named CUSACK, and whatever arrangement or understanding was come to between CUSACK and the executors to his deceased mother-in-law's will must not have satisfied the young prisoner, for he marched off in Friday night or Saturday morning with the cows and pigs, to turn an honest penny on his own account. A great deal of contradictory statements were made, and much extraneous matter introduced into the case, which occupied a considerable time....After considerable inquiry on both sides, the case was postponed for a week--the boy being bound over to appear--himself in 5l., and two sureties of 10l. each.
Constable M'CARTHY was directed to keep possession of the price of the cow sold by the prisoner, and to give the other cow to a man named M'CABE, one of the executors of the prisoner's mother, pending the settlement of the case.
John McGUIRK summoned James PREVAN for allowing four of his porkers to trespass on complainant's territory. The summons appeared to arise out of an old grudge, and the usual recriminations were indulged in on both sides. Fined 2s. and costs.
William WIDDOWS appeared to answer a demand for possession of a portion of a house occupied by him in the Main-street, Cavan.
Mr. SMITH, of Lisnaskes, the plaintiff, did not appear; and the Summons-server said that Mr. SMITH had desired him to apply for a postponement. The Court said that as no one appeared against the defendant, of course the case could not go on. WIDDOWS said it was a hard case to bring him to court. He was a tradesman, and could earn 5s by a good job while he was waiting for this case; he had been brought here "most ungraciously," as (illegible) he should receive a day's pay....The Court said they could do nothing, as the case was not before them.
Two young lads named James M'CANN and John FITZPATRICK were charged by Constable M'AUAY (sic) with having been quarrelling in the Min-street, on Saturday last. The quarrel was only a trifling one, and the Chairman said he supposed it was only an Irishman's amusement of the extreme quietness of the town on Patrick's day, and only fine them the costs. They should not, however, expect to escape so easily if caught quarreling on next Patrick's day.
The youthful combatants wished "long life" to his Worship, paid the costs, and went rejoicing on their way.
Sub-Constable M'GOWAN summoned John DOBSON of Polls, for allowing 13 head of cattle to wander on the public road near Stradone. Mr. DOBSON said he was in Cavan serving on a petty jury at the Assizes, on the day the cattle were found wandering; he left a man in charge of the cattle, but one of the cows became sick, and the man brought her to the farm-house....Taking these circumstances into account, the Court only imposed a fine of 2s. 6d. and costs.
Susan MASTERSON was brought up charged with having assaulted a pauper named Margaret BROGAN, in the Cavan Workhouse, on the 9th of March. The particulars of the attack appeared in our last, and the effects were still visible in the pea-green circles which surrounded Miss BROGAN's top-lights. Susan appeared calm and dignified; and scornfully resented Acting-Constable DUNN's familiarity in allowing his elbow to come in contact with her side, but recommending him to "drop off his poking"--an operation of which the gallant Constable meekly declared his innocence, and apologized for the unintentional collision. His submission was received with a gracious smile.
BROGAN's informations were read to her and she swore they were true.
Court (to Susan)--Do you wish to ask her any questions?
Susan--Ask her, on her oath, didn't she lift a red-hot burner to me before I laid a hand on her.........
Chairman--Why, Susan, you must be very active; you have left your mark plain enough.
Susan--It's very little I gave her when she lifted the burner to me....
Susan was sentenced to one month's sojourn in the jug (entitling her, we supposed, to the services of the hairdresser), and cautioned that her next appearance in court would result in a more lengthened visit. She chatted cheerfully in the "reserve seats" for some time, until, watching her opportunity, she glided towards the door. One of the "emeralds" twigging the retrograde movement, overtook her; but Susan was not endeavoring to escape--merely receiving a supply of edibles from a female friend, on accomplishing which she returned to "durance vile."
A man named WILTON brought a civil bill process for £1 11d. against William LAHEY. The defendant is at present in gaol, and as an insolvent debtor, and of course, could not appear, but in a note sent by him to the magistrates, he requested that the case should be postpone until next court day, as he had a good defence to the process--the money not being yet due.
The Court deliberated for some time as to whether they could hear the case under the circumstances--the plaintiff (who was greatly excited) refusing to consent to a postponement. Having satisfied themselves that they could hear the case, the plaintiff was examined, and stated that the sum claimed was the price of two pigs which he sold to defendant, in August last, and was to receive payment in November.
The Court gave a decree for the sum claimed, and directed the process-server to inform the defendant that he had the right of appealing to the Quarter Sessions, if he chose.
Mr. William FINLAY applied for a certificate to receive a spirit license for the house No. 6, Main-street. The Chairman said he understood the applicant was a very respectable man, and had amassed about £2,000 by his own industry during the drainage works. Constable CONN said he also knew him to be a respectable man.
The police having no objection, the Chairman and Captain Carden granted the certificate.
The Court then rose.
COUNTY OF CAVAN
DIVISION OF COOTEHILL
A LIST of APPLICATIONS received by the Clerk of the Peace from Person seeking
for the Sale of BEER, SPIRITS, &c......to be heard and inquired into at
C O O T E H I L L
On THURSDAY, the 29th day of March, 1860, immediately after the Grand Jury shall have been Sworn.
No. NAME RESIDENCE PARISH BARONY 1. CLARKE, John Main-street, Mullagh Mullagh Castleraghan 2. CONNOLLY, Michael Bridge-street, Cootehill Drumgoon Tullygarvey 3. FAY, Bernard Church-street, Cootehill Do. Do. 4. GOGARTY, Bridget Kingscourt Enniskeen Clonkee 5. M'KENNA, Owen Bridge-street, Cootehill Drumgoon Tullygarvey 6. M'KEON, James Main-street, Bailieborough Bailieboro Clonkee
GUSTAVUS TUITE DALTON
Clerk of the Peace, Cavan
Cavan, 9th March 1860
March 31, 1860
CAVAN QUARTER SESSIONS
The Quarter Sessions for this division of the county were opened at half-past ten o'clock on Monday, before
P. M. MURPHY, Esq., Q.C.
Chairman of the County of Cavan
The following magistrates occupied seats on the Bench with his Worship:-- Robert Burrowes, D. L., Theophilus Thompson, William Babington, Robert Erskine, Andrew Carden, R. J. Cummings, and W. M. Hickson, R. M. Esqrs.
His Worship first proceeded with the insolvent cases. There were only three, namely:--
Michael CASSIDY, for whom Mr. S. N. KNIPE appeared. There was no opposition, and the insolvent was discharged.
Richard HAMILTON, for whom Mr. R. W. CHARTERS, of Longford, appeared. This insolvent was also unopposed, and was accordingly discharged.
Peter M'LENEHAN, for whom Mr. S. N. KNIPE appeared. Mr. James ARMSTRONG opposed, on behalf of Mr. William HAGUE and Mr. Matthew LOUGH, merchants, of this town. The grounds of his opposition on the part of Mr. Hague were as follow:--
M'LENEHAN had been in business as a publican, grocer, and general dealer, in Bridge-street, Cavan, up to the 9th of December last, on which day he closed his shop; three days previous to his closing, namely, on Wednesday, the 6th of December, he went into Mr. Hague's shop, and asked the price of meal.....Mr. Hague replied that it was £13 per ton. M'Lenehan asked if he could get half a ton. Mr. HAGUE consented to sell him half a ton of the meal, on the express understanding that he was to pay for it on the following day. The meal was delivered accordingly, but as M'Lenehan was not coming forward with the money, Mr. Hauge sent his son--Mr. John Hague--to ask for it on the following day. M'Lenehan was not at home....Mr. Hague called again, and saw M'Lenehan, who said that he could not pay for the meal until the following day. Mr. Hague called next day, but M'Lenehan had a similar excuse.--Seeing his meal there, Mr. Hague asked him to give him the meal, as he would not give him the money. M'Lenehan refused to do so, and on the following day (Saturday) he closed his shop, after having treated several others in the same manner as he had Mr. Hague....The Chairman said that if there were £150 due to the insolvent, he could very easily enter into an arrangement with his creditors. He would give him until Wednesday morning to do so; and if he had not made the arrangement in that time would dismiss his petition....Mr. Armstrong inquired if the same rule applied to Mr. Lough's case. The Chairman said it did. The security was also to be the same
Edward KENNEDY, Foreman; Mathew LOUGH, James HARTLEY, Alexander KETTYLE, John GANNON, Philip SMITH, Francis E. HAMILTON, Thomas MALCOMSON, John DAVIS, Edward FEGAN, John MOORE, John MOORE, Robert BUCHANAN, and John GERARD, Esqrs.
The Grand Jury then retired; but a short time afterward, the Foreman came into Court, and informed his Worship that there was a difference of opinion one indictment. He wished to know if a majority of the Jury could find a bill, or was it necessary they should be unanimous.
The Chairman replied that twelve of the Jury could either find or ignore a bill.
The Court then proceeded to hear the
Patrick MONAGHAN, appellant; Sub-Inspector WEIR, respondent.
In this case the appellant had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment, at the Ballyjamesduff Petty Sessions, for an assault upon the respondent, who is Sub Inspector of Constabulary at Ballyjamesduff.
Messrs. James and John Armstrong appeared for the appellant. Mr. S. Knipe appeared for the respondent and briefly stated the case.
Sub-Inspector WEIR was then called and examined.--On the 10th of January I was sitting in my own house; it was between 5 and 6 o'clock; I heard a row in the street opposite my house; I ran out and saw several persons fighting; MONAGHAN and a man named CRUMMY appeared to be the worst; they were in grips, fighting; I ran over, and caught each of them by the throat and told them they should come with me; CRUMMY's wife told him not to resist; she said "for God's sake go quietly;" MONAGHAN resisted and struck me several times with his fist....James M'GEBNEY deposed he was looking on during the assault on Mr. WEIR, and previously, saw CURRY and MONAGHAN fighting; they were fighting when Mr. WEIR ran out; saw MONAGHAN strike Mr. WEIR several blows...
Thomas CRUMMY examined by Mr. Armstrong--Is a broguemaker, and on the night of the row was quarrelling with another broguemaker, named COLWELL; it wasn't a fight--only an argument about trade. Here Mr. CRUMMY turned and poured forth a torrent of vituperation upon the previous witness, calling him a thief, a robber, &c., and shouting that he (Mr. C) had to be constantly watching his potatoes to prevent him from stealing them......He was at length interrupted by the Chairman, who inquired if he knew where the gaol was?
CRUMMY--I do, your Worship.
Chairman--Well, if you behave yourself in that manner again, I'll send you to it for 48 hours.....
Peter M"DANIEL deposed that he saw MONAGHAN come over from the Market House to reconcile the disputing broguemakers....
Matthew HENY testified to the same effect, but on cross-examination so evaded giving a direct answer to any question that the Chairman ordered him to be committed for 48 hours, for prevarication and contempt of court.
The case having closed, His Worship said he saw no reason for altering the decision of the magistrates. He regretted they had inflicted so light a punishment....He affirmed the decision with 10s. costs.
Owen REILLY, appellant; the Queen, respondent
This was an appeal from conviction for having an illicit still in possession. Penalty £10. Mr. Knipe appeared for the appellant. The charge against his client had been brought under the 1st and 2nd Wm. IV., and he now appealed against the magistrates' decision. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for the respondent....
A long discussion ensued, the several acts were referred to, and his Worship, at some length, announced that he held, with Mr. Armstrong, that the right of appeal taken away by the 1st and 2nd William IV. was not restored by any subsequent act, and should therefore affirm the conviction, with 10s. costs.
Mr. Knipe said it would not look well to affirm the conviction when his Worship had not heard the case on the merits, particularly as this was the first time the question had been raised. It would be better to make his order "no jurisdiction" or "no rule." He did not think it right to give costs in the case.
After some remarks, Mr. Armstrong said he wold not press for costs, and would accept an order of "no rule," as the magistrates could issue their warrant in that order. His Worship then made the order "no rule, no costs."
Owen M'KERNAN, appellant; Anne FOLLIS, respondent
In this case the appellant had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment at the Cavan Petty Sessions for an assault upon the respondent, a nurse in the Infirmary. The particulars of the case were published in the OBSERVER at the time.
Mr. THOMPSON said the system of quashing cases of this kind should be put a stop to. If the sentence of the Magistrates was not illegal, it should be enforced. The woman ought to be compelled to come forward, or committed for contempt.
The Chairman said that was not the view to take of the matter. The man was brought before the magistrates charged with the assault. They found him guilty, and sentenced him to imprisonment. He had the right of appeal, and exercised it. He comes into court, through his attorney, to prosecute his appeal. No one appears for the respondent. She may have considered that she went too far at first, or she may have been tampered with. But whatever might be her motive for keeping away, it could not affect the appellant. He comes into court, and challenges the respondent to appear. She is not bound to come forward, except she wishes to do so. There was no case against the appellant when the respondent did not appear. The decision of the magistrates should, therefore, be reversed without costs.
This terminated the appeals.
The following were applications for spirit licenses:--
James CUMING, Main-street, Arvagh. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for the applicant, whose application was granted.
William FINLEY, Main-street, Cavan. Mr. Armstrong appeared. Application granted.
Phillip DONOHOE, Ballyjamesduff. Mr. John Armstrong appeared, and stated that in consequence of Mr. A. O'REILLY having gone to London, the applicant had not obtained the signature of the magistrates, but if his Worship left it over to the Ballyconnell Session, Mr. REILLY might be back in time to sign the certificate.
Chairman--You may send your client to London also, as soon as you like Mr. Armstrong.
Sub-Inspector WEIR opposed the application, on the ground that there are at present 21 public houses in Ballyjamesduff.
The application was refused.
James GALLAGHER was indicted for having, on the 21st of February, at Behy, in this county, assaulted Daniel LEDDY, and rescued a cow seized by him under a decree.....A petty jury was then sworn, and the prisoner given in charge......
LEDDY's statement was to the effect that having seized the cow under a civil bill decree obtained at the suit of Mr. James HARTLEY, draper, of this town, against Patrick GALLAGHER, father of the prisoner, and driven her some two hundred perches along the road towards Cavan, the prisoner and three other men followed him, and drove back the cow, though he told them he would hold them responsible if they rescued it.....The Chairman directed the jury to return a verdict of acquittal. This having been done, the prisoner was discharged.
Patrick COYLE was indicted for having, on the 17th of March, at Ballyconnell, assaulted one Hugh M'NULTY, and stolen from him a purse, value 1s., and a sum of money, value 3s. The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Mr. B. Armstrong prosecuted. Mr. John Armstrong defended the prisoner, who is a very young lad.
M'NULTY statement was to the effect that being in Ballyconnell on Patrick's day, he took a fancy to see the "police go through their exercise;" and while engaged in this profitable occupation, with his hands in his trousers pocket, "a blast of wind kem and tossecated his hat;" He took his hands out of his pockets to arrange his helmet, and having done so, "caught the prisoner's hand going away from his pocket," and "three white shillin's," half way out of his pocket; he immediately charged the prisoner with the offence, and that young gentlemen made a spring at his throat, and caught him by the necktie; the police conveyed both of them to the barrack......Cross-examined by Mr. John Armstrong--Wasn't drunk that day; took some drink; was purty well; was often worse, and often better; there was a purty good crowd looking at the police....the reason he charged the prisoner was because he looked so ill; he looked like a pickpocket; never was a pickpocket before; will not swear he looks like a pickpocket now (laughter).
The Chairman told the jury they should be quite sure the prisoner was guilty before then convicted him. It was quite possible what Mr. Armstrong suggested that the prosecuted had moved the purse himself when taking his hand out of his pocket.
The jury, without leaving the box, acquitted the prisoner....The prisoner was then discharged.
Sarah CLARKE was charged with having, on the 2nd of February, at Belturbet, assaulted one George STEWART, and stolen a purse, value 1s., and a sum of money value £9, from him.
Mr. John Armstrong prosecuted. Mr. Knipe defended the prisoner--a respectably dressed woman.....The Chairman told the jury they might believe the prisoner guilty if they wished--for his part he would not like to do so on such evidence. The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of not guilty.
Charles LEE, charged with perjury was called to appear, or forfeit his recognizances. His sureties were also called, but neither appeared. Mr. B. Armstrong said the case was postponed from last sessions, as there was some reason for believing the accused to be of unsound mind....The Chairman said that if Mr. Armstrong had investigated the case on the part of the Crown, and considered the accused not of sound mind, of course he would not be placed on trial. Mr. Armstrong said it might be as well to estrent the recognizances, and the order could be afterwards rescinded, if the Court saw fit to do so. The Chairman said it would be a bad precedent to make the order, and then rescind. It might be as well to let the case stand over until next morning, when Dr. MOORE's opinion could be had. Mr. Armstrong agreed to this arrangement.....
The Court sat on Tuesday until about 5 o'clock........
On Wednesday, the Court sat at 10 o'clock. The insolvent, Peter M'LENEHAN, whose petition was postponed on Monday, that he might enter into arrangements with the opposing creditors, was again brought up. As he had not made any settlement, His Worship dismissed the insolvent's petition, and he was removed in custody.
The remaining business of the Sessions closed at half past two. His Worship proceeded to Cootehill on Thursday.
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.