Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan

November 3, 1860


(Before W. Magill, A. D. Chaigneau, R. Smith, W. Grey, W. H. Griffith, and G. M. Eccles, Esqrs.)


Patrick MAGUIRE was brought before the bench, charged with being the leader of a party of Ribbonmen who waylaid and beat two men, named MALEADY and M'LOUGHLIN, in a most inhuman manner, at the house of James MURRAY, better know as "The Pigeons."

MALEADY, whose life was at one time despaired of, was present to prosecute, and related the particulars of the occurrence. The prisoner MAGUIRE he identified as the principal, and as the person who leaped upon him when he was knocked down. A man named SEERY came forward to prove an alibi, in whom the police recognised as old offender, and for whom a warrant had been in their hands a considerable time. Maleady also identified him as one of the party assisting Maguire on the night in question, and he was at once taken into custody. Informations were taken, and the prisoners fully committed for trial at the assizes.

Mr. KIRKLAND, sub-inspector of the district, conducted the case for the Crown, and was very active in bringing this party to justice.

RIBBON OUTRAGE--On the night of Sunday last a large number of men, armed with clubs, entered the house of Peter MOORE, caretaker to Mrs. HANDY, residing of Bracca Castle, within two miles of Kilbeggan. Fortunately for Moore, and perhaps for the "Peep o' Day Boys" themselves, three of four of his neighbours were then sitting at the fire, seeing which the party--always cowardly when anything in the shape of opposition shows itself--went out to consult upon what they would do. Moore's wife seized this opportunity to close and bar the door. In a few minutes afterwards three or four attempts were made by those outside to force in the door, failing which they went away. Moore, who had armed himself with a gun, was fully prepared and determined to resist the entry; and there can be no doubt that he would have given a good account of some of the "boys" if they had forced the door. The same party then went to the house of Martin O'HARA, gardener to Joseph HACKETT, Esq., of Coolalough, but not finding him within, they proceeded to the house of a man named STEWART, where they found poor O'Hara. Four of the party entered Stewart's, and one of them rushing at O'Hara, and shouting out, "I have been long looking for you," dragged him from the fire, when the whole of them commenced to belabour him most unmercifully, and were it not that he was in some measure saved by Stewart and his wife--the former of whom got some blows--it is thought he would have been killed. No cause can be assigned for the attack on O'Hara, who is a quiet, hard-working man. Those very active officers, E B. WARBURTON, R.M., and G. FORTESCUE, Esq., S.I., were immediately at the scene of the outrage, and took all necessary steps to have the perpetrators brought to justice; but when it is remembered that the people of the district will not, if they can possibly help it, utter a single word which may have the effect of leading to the detection of the guilty party, it is to be feared their exertions will not be crowned with the success they deserve. WESTMEATH INDEPENDENT


The Lord Lieutenant has been pleased to approve of the appointment of John MADDEN, Esq., to be a deputy lieutenant in the county of Fermanagh, in the room of Major IRVINE, deceased.


Magistrates present:--William Babington, Esq., Chairman; Nathaniel Montgomery, and Andrew Carden, Esqrs.

Francis SMITH, of Denmore, was fined 1s. 1d. and costs for having allowed three hens, nine ducks, and one drake, his property, to pay a predatory visit to the oat crop of his neighbour, Bridget CALLAGHAN.

Jane THORNTON summoned Bridget RYAN for having used indecent and abusive language towards her on the public road at Swellan. Complainant is a servant to Mr. HARDMAN, V.S., at Swellan; and had the misfortune to excite the wrath of defendant, who, during the last three months, has carried on vigorous vocal warfare against her....The Chairman informed complainant that the Court could afford her no redress, as the offence did not come within the provisions of the act; he recommended Mrs. R., however, to conduct herself better in future, for it again brought before them, she might not escape so easily.


Mr. M'Gauran, on the part of plaintiff, said the case was brought for the recovery of 10s., half-a-year's rent of a house held by defendant, who formerly held at the same rent under a man named M'QUEADE, from whom the plaintiff purchased.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for defendant, and some discussion arose as to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case. Defendant said he wished to produce a witness--Mr. Edward O'REILLY, of Rockfield--and hoped the Court would allow the case to stand over until he arrived. This was agreed to, and on Mr. O'Reilly's arrival, a considerable time afterwards,.....Plaintiff, M'QUEADE, and Mr. Reilly were examined, and from their evidence it appeared that at the time plaintiff purchased from M'Queade, defendant formally gave up possession, and agreed to accept plaintiff as his landlord; but he afterwards gave up, at plaintiff's request, possession of a small garden attached to the house, and no agreement having been made as to the rent after this, the Court dismissed the case.

Charles JOHNSTON v. James BRADY

Plaintiff is a country mason, and he claimed a sum of 5s., amount of three days' work. Defendant acknowledged that he owed 3s., which he had repeatedly tendered to plaintiff, and having proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he owed no more, a decree for that sum was given.


This was a claim for thirteen days' wages, at 9d. per day.

Robert HENDERSON, an employe of the Rev. Mr. MONEYPENNY, stated, in defence, that plaintiff had been hired from the 26th August to the 1st November, but he only remained a fortnight, during which the weather was very bad, and as soon as it cleared up, he left his work, and went to look for higher wages.

Plaintiff asserted that he was only engaged by the day, and that he could produce a witness who was present when the agreement was made with him. The Court postponed the case for the production of this witness.


John GUNN, of Lisnashannagh, summoned Rose BRADY and Catherine REILLY for breaking the lock of an orchard gate; Susan Brady summoned Rose Brady and Catherine Reilly for an assault; and Catherine Reilly summoned Susan Brady for a similar offence.

It appeared the Rose Brady is Susan's sister-in-law; the latter returned from America about two years ago, and went to reside with her mother, who occupies a portion of the house in which Rose Brady and her husband reside, Catherine Reilly being their servant. At the time that Susan's brother took unto himself a wife, some agreement was entered into between him and his mother--the latter making over to him (as is alleged) the entire farm, retaining only the grass of a cow, the fruit of the orchard, and a room in the house. Unfortunately for themselves, they appear to agree but very badly--the house being divided into two hostile camps....

The Chairman said that the Court considered the charge of assault fully proved against Rose Brady. But as they considered that she might have received some provocation, they would impose only a penalty of 3s. and costs.....The charge of Catherine Reilly against Susan Brady was dismissed. But in order to try and make them live in peace for the future, they should both be bound over to keep the peace towards each other......Patrick Reilly paid the fine for his wife, and the others were allowed a week to procure bail.

John TULLY, of Denmore, summoned John Kiernan for the trespass of some cattle; but it appeared that defendant had four days previous--namely on the 20th ult., served complainant with a formal notice to "make up his mearing;" which was not attended to. The case was dismissed, and the defendant was informed that if complainant does not comply with the notice, he can obtain an order to compel him to do so.

Constable SHEALDS summoned Terence GORMAN, a blacksmith, for having been drunk in the streets of Cavan, on the previous night. As Gorman bears a good character, he was only fined 1s. and costs.

Constable SHEALDS also summoned John M'LOUGHLIN, a "navvy," for having been drunk on the Fair-hill, on Sunday night. M'LOUGHLIN's right eye was much swelled and blackened, and he made no defence. He was fined 5s., which was paid by a friend.

The Constable charged a fellow named REILLY with having assaulted M'LOUGHLIN. He stated that when standing on the Fair-hill, on the previous night, he hear M'LOUGHLIN speaking to some person at the hut in which Reilly lives with one of the wretched denizens of the hill, and immediately afterwards saw some person rush out. He heard blows struck, and saw M'Loughlin fall. He ran up, and found Reilly in the hut. There was no weapon with which the blow could be struck except a pair of tons. M'Loughlin was bleeding, but was too drunk to identify the person who struck him. The Constable, however, had no doubt that Reilly was the person who did so....He was fined 5s.

Edward CONNOR, boot and shoemaker, Bridge-street, charged Rose FITZPATRICK, his hired servant, with stealing two parcels of boot leather and two children's capes. The accused is a young girl, and the articles stolen were pawned at Mr. SMALL's office, and fully identified by Mr. CONNOR, who stated that several other articles had been stolen from his house since he hired the accused. The latter admitted the theft of the leather and capes, but denied taking anything else. She alleged that she stole them in order to purchase bread with the proceeds, as she was not properly fed by Mr. Connor, but he deposed that she always received a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food. A paper, signed by several shopkeepers, was read, giving her an excellent character, and Mr. SMITH, a publican, we believe, also testified as to her previous honesty. Her sister, a married woman, promised that the price of the articles would be given to Mr. Connor in case he withdrew his charge, as the accused was the only support of her mother, who was dangerously ill. Mr. Robert LEE, a pensioner, offered to pay all the expenses if the request were complied with, as he was sure that the unfortunate mother would die if the girl were sent to prison. Finally, the case was adjourned for a week, and Mr. Connor, and Mr. Small re-bound to prosecute.

The Court then rose.

(From Our Contemporary)

DROGHEDA, OCTOBER 30--The petty sessions of this town were held on yesterday, before P. Byrne, Esq., Mayor; George Harmper and Thomas Derinzy, Esqrs. The court was densely thronged in consequence of its being understood that a prosecution was to take place against three of the principal master bakers of the town, Messrs. BARROW, GALBREATH, and Michael KELLY, for having exercised their trade and calling on the Lord's Day, contrary to 1st and 2nd Victoria, chap. 28, sec. 13.

Mr. Barrow's case was partially heard at the former petty sessions, when his solicitor, Mr. W. A. M'KENNA, raised a point to the effect that no conviction could be had until it was proven that Mr. Barrow had personally violated the statute. The question as sent to the Law Officer of the Crown, who decided that Mr. Barrow was answerable for the acts of his workmen, while making dough or bread on his premises.

The first case called was that of Mr. Hugh Galbreath. Mr. John T. Rowland, solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. Galbreath very ingeniously defended his case.

The evidence of two journeymen bakers, working at Mr. Gilbreath's went to show that in addition to the "setting of the sponge" on the Sunday (which is allowable by the Act) the men proceeded to convert it into dough before midnight.

Mr. Gilbreath referred the Bench to a saving clause the 13th section, as follows:--"save and except so far as may be necessary in setting and superintending the sponge to prepare the bread or dough for the following day"

He argued with Mr. Rowland at great length, contending that the word, "superintending" gave the baker the permission to change the sponge into dough on the Sunday....In consequence of a portion of the Bench being dubious of the exact meaning of the section, another query was submitted to the Law Officer of the Crown, viz:--"To making dough on Sunday a breach of the Act." The reply cannot be had for seven days.

Mr. Rowland stated that it was a shame to see some of the master bakers returning to the old system, after all that had been said and done in Drogheda to abolish night work and the violation of the sanctity of the Lord's day.

After hearing some trifling matters of no interest, the Court rose.


William GILL, a weaver, residing in the Dublin liberties, who was charged with the murder of his wife, was placed on his trial in the Commission Court, Green-street, on Monday, and on Tuesday evening the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty." The evidence was entirely circumstantial. The deceased woman was found in the room occupied by herself and husband with her throat cut. There was no person in the room but GILL, and he said nothing of the circumstance until the occupants of the room underneath him discovered blood through the ceiling, and instituted enquiries. It was then alleged that the unfortunate woman committed suicide, and an old blunt knife blade was place in her hand, but the medical evidence went to prove that she could not by any possibility have cut her throat with such an instrument. The mob in the court and outside of it cheered vigorously on the acquittal of the prisoner being known.


This morning the Chairman of the county Monaghan, James Major, Esq., Q.C., took his seat in the Crown Court of the County Courthouse at ten o'clock, and proceeded with the criminal business.


The Rev. Mr. M'NALLY, Roman Catholic clergyman of the parish of Clones, was indicted for assaulting, by striking with a stick, William FEGAN, a porter at the Clones station of the Dundalk and Eniskillen Railway. The accused pleaded "not guilty."

The witnesses were all put out of court.

Mr. William FEGAN was examined by Mr. A. Dudgeon, and deposed that he was a porter at the Clones station of the Dublin and Enniskillen Railway. On the night of the 6th of September he was passing up Pound-hill, in Clones, and at the house of a man named BEARD, while standing talking to Dorcas BEARD, who was looking out of the window of her father's house, the Rev. Mr. M'Nally went up and down by him, and after saying something to witness, he caught him by the collar and said, "You must go off the street." Witness said--"I will not, I'll go when I'm ready;" the Rev. Mr. M'Nally then struck witness with a stick, and witness pulled it from him; the Rev. Mr. M'Nally then pulled a pistol out of his pocket and cocked it; witness instantly seized the piston just over the nipple, and the hammer fell on witness's hand, and the pistol did not go off; did not know if it were loaded at all; witness wrung it from the Rev. M. M'Nally and went off home, as a mob was gathering; he examined the pistol when he went home, and it had a cap on it; Owen O'CONNOR and James O'CONNOR followed witness and went into the house with him, and snatched the pistol from him, and took it away. [The pistol was then produced by Mr. SHEA, on a notice from the Crown. It was a very large sized weapon.]

The witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr. REA, on behalf of his client, but nothing was elicited contrary to the direct testimony

Dorcas BEARD, Jane GRAHAM, and Henry HOLMAN, were examined and fully corroborated the evidence of William FEGAN in every point. Jane Graham deposed that they had been most intimate at the time.

The Chairman said he would put it to the jury that as the two girls contradicted each other so much on that point, there was no evidence to be considered by that of Fegan himself, and he thought that such a case of common assault at most should never have been returned for trial.

Mr. Dudgeon said, under those circumstances, he would, on the part of the Attorney General, enter a "nolle prosequi."

This closed the case, and the Rev. Mr. M'Nally was discharged.


We understand that Thomas POTTER, Esq., county inspector, of Longford, is to be transferred, at his own request, to the county of Louth, the inspectorship of that county being now vacant by the death of the late H. J. M. WALSH, Esq., county inspector.

First class Sub-Inspector John Smyth WATKINS, who has been stationed at Mullingar, has been appointed by the Inspector-General to the command of a company of the reserve force, at the depot, Phoenix Park.

Sub-Inspectors George Arthur MOLONY and Robert F. CURTIS are at present at Hythe School of Musketry, undergoing a course of instruction in rifle drill.

Robert SOMMERVILLE, Esq., county inspector of Leitrim, has, on the recommendation of Sir H. J. BROWNRIGG, C.B., been promoted from the second to the first class of county inspectors, dating from 1st October ultimo.

Third Sub-Inspector Mark BURKE has been promoted to the rank of second-class sub-inspector, vice Blexham promoted.

November 10, 1860


Magistrates present:--William Babington, Esq., Chairman; W. Smith and A. Carden, Esqrs.


This was a charge of assault and house breaking. Mr. S. Knipe appeared for complainant, and Mr. John Armstrong for defendant.

It appeared that complainant went to live or lodge some years since with a couple named MAGUIRE, and has since continued to reside in their house. Maguire and his wife are both death (sic)--the latter having survived her husband some time. She left after her son by a former marriage with a man named M'QUILLAN. This son is now in America; but, previous to his departure for America, complainant alleges that he sold her the house for £1, in consideration of the attention she paid his mother during her last illness. Complainant also stated that her possession of the house had never been disputed by any one except by defendant's father, who purchased from Tom MAGUIRE (M'QILLAN's stepfather) the acre of land attached to the house. After the death of Mrs. Maguire, Foy sought to induce her son to become tenant to him for the house, or to sell it, and offered him 30s. for it, but M'Quillan would have nothing to do with him; and after M'Quilllan went to America, defendant's father tried to induce her to become his tenant, but without success; and on the day named in the summons he sent his son to pull down the house. She saw him on the roof, and threw a stone at him, then he assaulted her, threw her down, knelt on her chest, &c. She admitted, on cross-examination, that she heard that Foy purchased the house along with the land, but said that Mrs. Maguire was to have the house during her own life and that of her son. The defence was that the house belonged to Foy, and he merely allowed the Maguires to continue in it after he purchased it, though charity; that complainant was only a squatter, and as regards the assault, Foy swore that his son merely held her to prevent her throwing stones. Much discussion, cross-examining, &c., having taken place,t he Court dismissed the case.

John GUNN v. Patrick BRADY

This was a summons for the trespass of two cows and one sow on complainant's orchard, and for damage done by them to his applies. It may be remembered that GUNN, on last Court day, brought a charge against Brady's wife and servant for breaking the lock of his orchard gate, which was dismissed. Brady claims the right of putting in his farm produce in his mother's orchard, and she denies that he has any right to do so. The defence to the trespass was that GUNN, without the authority of Brady, broke a gap between the two orchards, through which the animals got in..... The Court gave a decree of 1s. 6d. and costs.

Gunn had another summons against Brady, for breaking the cart, which was dismissed.......

James HEUSTON, of Kiluconnon, parish of Lavay, v. Michael MARTIN

The informations of HEUSTON stated that MARTIN, who occupies a house belonging to him, had been digging potatoes for him at 8d per day; on Tuesday, as they were leaving the field, Martin struck him on the back with a spade--and threw stones at him; on the same night, about nine o'clock, Martin came to his house, accompanied by his wife, and used abusive language towards him, and Martin's wife broke a pane of glass. On the following night, at an advanced hour, Martin, dressed in female clothes, his brother (who is not yet amenable), disguised by having a sheet wrapped round him, and a large party, came to his house, and when, alarmed by the noise, he went out, they forced him on his knees, and used violent threats against him, in case he again employed strangers. Heuston fully identified Martin....the Court decided to send the case for trial to the Quarter Sessions.


Michael BAXTER summoned Thomas SMITH for £1 12s. 6d., half a year's wages from May to November.--The plaintiff, for whom Mr. John Armstrong appeared, is a young lad, and asserted that the defendant had on two or three occasions turned him away, but afterwards came for him. His father corroborated his statements. The defence was that the boy had misconducted himself. Both sides having been heard, the Chairman said it was evident that the plaintiff had committed many little offences, as boys will do, but defendant could have summoned him previous to the termination of his engagement. The would give a decree for 25s. and costs.


Samuel PICKINS summoned Judith YOUNG for having a dog in her possession, his property, knowing it to have been stolen.

Complainant's testimony as to the effect that he missed the dog, when about five months old, in June last, and gave information of the loss to the police; that he did not see or hear of it since until lately, where he found the dog with defendant, who refused to give it up and said that she had got it from a man from Arvagh. Defendant's son deposed that he got the dog, when a pup, from the son of a man named LACKY, a cartmaker, in Cavan. He denied that his mother had used the expressions stated by complainant, and said that the dog in his possession was not near as old as Pickins asserted his to have been when he lost it.

LACKY, the cartmaker, stated that the dog strolled into his shop in June or July last, and that his son asked Young did he want a pup--the other replied that he did, and the pup was then given to Young by the boy. Thomas DARBY (who was sent for by Young) deposed that Pickins lodged with him previous to the loss of the dog; that the pup was a great nuisance in the place, and Mrs. Pickins gave it away to some person.....Pickins denied this statement and, after a variety of conflicting assertions, the Chairman said there could be no imputation on Young, who was a respectable man; but the dog evidently belonged to Pickins, and should be given to him. At the same time, he suggested that Pickins should give Young some compensation for feeding the dog for such a length of time.


Anne GREEN was brought up in custody, charged on the informations of Fanny LEATHAM, of Toneymore, with stealing a book. It appeared that the prosecutrix had given the accused lodgings for the night, through charity, and in the morning she decamped with a book which Mrs. Leatham's husband had borrowed from the Farnham Library. She was arrested by Sub-Constable WALLACE at Castletarra, on the road leading to Cootehill. A sum of 3s. 8d. and the book was found in her possession when arrested.

In reply to the Court, she pleaded guilty, and expressed her willingness to be dealt with summarily....The Chairman said the Court had considerable doubts as to whether they were not about to treat her with too much lenity. He was greatly afraid she was a bad character.......they would order her to be imprisoned for one month in the Cavan Gaol.

The prisoner (a miserable looking creature) cried bitterly, and had to be removed.


Jane HEWITT summoned Pat FITZPATRICK for wilfully injuring her cow by pelting it with stones and hunting it with a dog, and her son summoned him for an assault.....

It appeared that Fitzpatrick is servant to a man named Thomas SMITH, living near Mrs. Hewitt. The cow trespassed on Smith's land, and in driving it off, Fitzpatrick committed the alleged injury. Mrs. Hewitt's son deposed to seeing defendant hunting the cow with a dog, throwing stones at it and driving it into a ditch.....All stated that the cow is with calf.

The Chairman suggested that it would be well to withdraw the summons, and, if anything happened to the cow, the complainant could take a civil action against Fitzpatrick's master....

With regard to the assault, according to the statement of Hewitt, he went to Fitzpatrick's master, to come and see the injury the cow sustained; that Smith refused to do so; that Fitzpatrick "gave him the lie," said he could kick him, assaulted him, and sang a "party song, made on the death of Mr. Bell," to provoke him......Fitzpatrick had a cross-charge of assault against Hewitt....The Chairman said he would fine Fitzpatrick 6s. for the injury to the cow, as he had behaved most cruelly. He would dismiss the charge of assault brought by Hewitt against Fitzpatrick; and fine Hewitt 2s. 6d., and costs, for the assault on Fitzpatrick. He strongly advised the latter to give up singing offensive songs....Fitzpatrick thanked his worship, promised never to be guilty of singing such songs again, and both parties paid the fines.

James BRADY, of Clonervy, summoned Edward FINNEGAN for interfering with a pass. The Chairman, without going into the case, referred it to W. A. MOORE, Esq., the agent of the parties--his decision to be an award of Court.

Bridget REILLY and Catherine REILLY were each fined 6d. and costs, for allowing their pigs to wander on the public road.

The Court then rose.


On the 7th instant, in the Roman Catholic Church, Drumgoon, by the Rev. Terence O'REILLY, P.P., assisted by the Rev. Daniel O'REILLY, C.C., and the Rev. Thomas SMITH, C.C., Francis O'FARRELL, Esqr., Dublin, to Margaret, third daughter of Thomas FAY, Esq., Cootehill.


On 7th inst., at his residence, Crane-lane, Dame-street, Dublin, Mr. Thomas QUINTON, aged 63 years, sincerely regretted by a numerous circle of friends, to whom he was endeared for his probity and excellent social qualities. He was the author of many lyrical compositions of acknowledged merit, among which need only be mentioned the highly popular one of "Fill a Cup," to establish his talent.

(From Our Correspondent)

At our petty sessions today, before Thomas Rothwell, Francis Murphy, and John Robert Taaffe, Esqrs., a case of a very singular nature was heard the peculiar circumstances of which seemed to astonish the Bench. The following are the particulars:

The Queen v. Joseph KERRIGAN, James BYRNE, James KEATING, Patrick KEATING, Richard WALSH and Patrick CULLEN

The charge, as set forth in the summons was, that the traversers did, on the night of the 31st of October, between the house of nine and ten o'clock, riotously and unlawfully assemble with diverse others, at Canningstown, in this county, and then and there did violently assault John KELLY, and put him in fear of his life.

Mr. Sullivan, solicitor, appeared for the defence.

John KELLY, who it would appear is a small farmer residing at Canningstown, and first examined, and stated that at the hour on the night named, while sitting in his own house, he heard great noise outside, and he went out to see what was the matter. At some distance off he observed at least forty persons, who were talking loud and shouting, and coming in the direction of his dwelling. After a short time the gang halted, and he went out to the road. They again proceeded to move towards him, and when within a few perches of him he thought it safer to move towards his own door; but no sooner had he turned round than he was struck with a stone in the leg...He cried out to them, and begged of them to do what they pleased, but not to use personal violence to himself or his family. The party then broke into two divisions, each taking a different road, while he heard stones flying about. His son and daughter were also struck. He identified Cullen and Walsh as two of the party.

Kelly's son was next examined,and gave a similar version of the gathering, the shouting, and the stone throwing. He identified Keating and Walsh....Mr. Murphy stated that old Kelly should not have left his house at all, when such a mob of fellows sought to hurt him.

Kelly begged the Bench to afford him all the protection the law would allow, as he could swear that he was in fear and dread of his life, and the lives of his family. The Chairman said he should received every protection the law would allow.......

After a consultation between the magistrates, three of the party were bound over to keep the peace to Kelly and his family and all her Majesty's subjects. One was discharged on paying a fine, and the other two were not identified.

SUDDEN DEATH--On Wednesday morning a carter named M'ENTEGART, residing near the Drogheda Rail-Station, when he was accustomed to draw goods in his own float to the shopkeepers, while putting harness on his horse in the stable dropped down and almost immediately breathed his last. He was about sixty years of age, and twelve months ago his house, stable, and a quantity of hay were burned to the ground, the incendiary being supposed to be his own son. Since that occurrence he has been for some length of time out of his mind, and has fretted much.--DROGHEDA CORRESPONDENT.

November 17, 1860

(Before W. Babington, esq., J. P., Chairman; and T. Thompson, J.P.)


John WEIR v. Richard NESBITT

This was a summons for the trespass of twenty-two head of cattle on complainant's enclosed field, on the 5th instant. Complainant and his daughter proved the trespass and deposed that the trespassing cattle had done much damage to potatoes, cabbages, and carrots in the field. Mr. John Armstrong, on the part of defendant, admitted the trespass; but stated that it was the result of one of those unavoidable accidents which will sometimes occur, despite all precautions. The defence was that complainant was contributory to the trespass in consequence of the insufficiency of his fences....Mr. Nesbitt's land was situated about a quarter of a mile from complainant's whose farm "meared" on the public road. Mr. Nesbitt could not, therefore, summon him for having insufficient fences. Mr. Nesbitt's cattle ran out of the field along the public road, and into defendant's field, which was totally unprotected. They did not remain there many minutes, and did no damage.

Robert KERNAN and Laurence MEEHAN, two men in the employment of Mrs. Nesbitt, deposed that they examined the field in which the cows trespassed, and found only "six wee heads of cabbage" injured by them, and that the fence was insufficient to prevent cattle from trespassing.

The case was dismissed on the merits.

Michael CONNOLLY v. Thomas PRATT

This summons was brought for the trespass of one cow, on the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Nov., on complainant's after-grass and potato ground. Defendant said he took the grazing of a field from the man whose land adjoins complainant's, and he considered that it was against him complainant should have proceeded. The Court informed him that, as the owner of the cow, he was accountable....Fined 2s. 6d. and costs.


Patrick M'GINNELL and Owen CARROLL, two extremely disconsolate-looking tailors, were brought up in custody of Sub-Constable MORAN, charged with having been drunk in the streets of Cavan on the previous night. It appeared that the worthy knights of the thimble-guarded digit had prolonged their post-prandial carouse until an advanced hour, and had made several efforts to reach their domiciles...Mr. Carroll had not been legally intoxicated in public since the last fair of Crossdoney, but his luckless companion had thrice enjoyed police hospitality during the previous week. The Court fined the former 6d. and costs, or 24 hours imprisonment, and the latter 2s. 6d and costs, or 48 hours imprisonment--Carroll, having sent his digital extremities on a cruise through the mazy mysteries of his pockets announced that his funds were reduced to three-pence, but "there was sixpence coming" to him where he was working. That sum not being sufficient he announced willingness to leave Cavan if allowed to do so--"was going to Kells or Drogheda yesterday" when his evil star introduced him to M'Ginnell.

M'Ginnell--And I was goin' with him (laughter).

The Chairman said they could not think of parting with M'Ginnell--he was a "fixture" in the town; and it was better for him to go to gaol, and be out of harm's way during the fair. The proposition of Mr. Carroll was accepted, and that worthy departed on his way "to Kells or Drogheda," leaving his disconsolate comrade to proceed, under escort, to the "jug."


Rose CANNON summoned Mary SMITH, Anne SMITH, and Mary SMITH, junior (mother and daughters), for having assaulted her; and Anne Smith summoned Rose Cannon for having used indecent and abusive language towards her. The charge of assault was fully proved, and Anne Smith was fined 2s. 6d., and her mother 5s., with costs--one third of the penalty to be given to the complainant. The other case was dismissed.

The Court then rose.

LANDLORD LIBERALITY--The Rev. Henry PERCEVAL, with his usual liberality, has forgiven a half-year's rent to a widow, named Rose TULLY, of Aughnahaw--she having suffered great losses by the death of cattle.

(From Our Own Correspondent)

DROGHEDA, MONDAY EVENING--Our petty sessions were held in the Thosel (sic) to-day, before P. Byrne, Esq., Mayor; James Matthews, Esq., and George Harper, Esq.


A case of John KELLY, a journeyman baker, against Messrs. Hugh GALBREATH and Thomas HARRON, two master bakers in this town, for violating the Sabbath, by pursuing their trade and calling thereon, had been pending since last sessions, to await an opinion of the Law Officer of the Crown, raised in their favour....To-day, on the magistrates taking their seats on the Bench, Mr. GAWVEY, the sessions clerk, read the following communication from the Castle:--

Dublin Castle, Nov. 2nd, 1860

GENTLEMEN--I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter.....relative to the cases of the bakers of Drogheda, and I am to acquaint you..the the Law of opinion that the words referred to in your communication DO NOT GIVE THE BAKERS THE POWER TO MAKE DOUGH ON THE LORD'S DAY. The Law Adviser is also of opinion that a baker would not be warranted in converting the sponge into dough on the Lord's Day, by reason of any apprehension that the sponge might be lost.

Your obedient, &c.,
Thomas A. LARCOM

After the reading of the letter, the Bench ordered in each of the two cases a fine of ten shillings and ten shillings costs, and trusted that as the fine was doubled for each successive offence that the bakers would abandon the practice.

The Chairman Justice of the Town Commissioners of Longford, J. STRITCH, Esq., has been appointed Resident Magistrate in the place of Nicholas KELLY, Esq., deceased.

DEATH BY DROWNING--John HAMILL, a blacksmith in the employment of Major NUGENT, at Castleward, was drowned at Strangford ship on Tuesday night, his body being found in the water the following morning by some of the police. The deceased, we understand, had been drinking on Tuesday night. An inquest was held, and a verdict of "accidental drowning" returned.--DOWN RECORDER.

November 24, 1860


RIBBON OUTRAGE--Some few days ago, Mr. Catherine CLARKE, a widow lady residing at Meldrum, near Kilbeggan, feeling dissatisfied with her herd, one Daniel FRODDEN, discharged him, and engaged the services of another many named GRADY, who resides convenient to Meldrum. >From some cause or other, this arrangement did not please that very respectable and peaceably-disposed body--the Ribbon Society--who, to mark their sense of fancied insult offered to them, by the fact of their consent not having been previously obtained, at once issued an order from head-quarters, and, in obedience thereto, a select party of the society's officials, to the number of five or six, visited the house of Grady on the night of Sunday last, the 11th instant, and warned him against entering into the service of Mrs. Clarke, telling him that if he did not obey their orders, he might at once prepare his coffin. It is hoped that Grady, who is a stout, resolute man, with two or three grown-up sons, will set the warning and the society itself at defiance.--WESTMEATH GUARDIAN.

SUSPECTED MURDER--On Monday last, a man named Thomas JONES, in the employment of Mr. James WIER, of Tullaghan, was sent into Mullingar on some business by his employer. He did not return on that night, which caused inquiries to be made respecting him, when it was learned that he, in company with a party of men, had been drinking in Mr. DINNEN's public-house on Monday night; that the party, including Jones, left the house for the purpose of going home, and that on reaching the Harbour-bridge, a row arose amongst them, after which Jones mysteriously disappeared. These acts, having come to the knowledge of the police, Constable BONIS at once made inquiries as to the names of the persons who had been in company with Jones on the night in question, having ascertained which, he accompanied by a sub-constable, proceeded to Irish-town, where he arrested three of the party, one of whom had marks of blood on his clothes, and a neckerchief in his possession which was identified as having been worn by Jones on the night of disappearance. The constable also arrested a female, who, it appears, was in company with Jones on the same night. No tidings of the missing man were received until yesterday morning, about half-past eleven o'clock, when his body was discovered in the canal, close to the metal bridge, by a man named David STENSON, agent to the Royal Canal Company. The police had the body removed to Mr. DINNEN's public-house, Harbour-street, where an inquest was held before P. CONNELL, Esq., and a most respectable and intelligent jury, the proceedings of which we subjoin. The coroner, having conferred with the magistrates present--G. Fetherston, Esq., and J. L. Cronin, Esq., R.M., informed the jury that they (the magistrates) deemed it injudicious to bring forward the persons in custody, as they considered it might tend to frustrate the ends of justice to examined any witnesses against them at present. Therefore, all the jury had to do was to investigate how the man came by his death; consequently, the testimony of a couple of witnesses, with that of the doctor, would be sufficient to enable them to give their verdict.--"Ibid."

(Before W. Babington, Esq., J.P.)


Joseph Smith, of Swelling,w as charged with having, on the 9th of November, at Arnmore, in this county, unlawfully cut and carried away an ash sapling, the property of Wm. Armitage MOORE, Esq., J.P.

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for Mr. Moore, and examined Ephraim GILHOOLY, a man in the employment of Mr. Moore, who deposed that on the morning of the 9th of November he saw Smith cutting an ash sapling, in Mr. Moore's plantation; he asked him why he was doing so, and Smith replied that he wanted the sapling for a "twister" in making ropes; on examination, witness found two other saplings cut in the same place.....

The Chairman asked Smith for his defence, and told him he might ask the witness any questions he pleased. Smith said he had cut the sapling by the authority of Mr. Moore's steward, for whom he was making three baskets at the time....

The case was according allowed to stand over, and Mr. Wm. JOHNSTON, Mr. Moore's steward, was sent for. On his arrival in Court, he deposed that he never gave Smith authority to cut ash sapling; he gave him no authority to cut any sapling; about nine or ten weeks ago he employed him to make three baskets, and gave him permission to cut a bundle of "sallies," as he said he had no rods, but these "sallies" were cut from a place from which a tenant was after "fitting."

Smith persevered in his statement, and said he had been "working twelve years for Mr. Moore, and never wronged him threepence."

The Chairman informed Smith that he had left himself liable to a fine of £5,or six months' imprisonment. His offence was aggravated by the fact that he was a servant to, and receiving the bounty of Mr. Moore....Although the full penalty would not be imposed, the Court could not allow the case to pass without the infliction of such a punishment as might be a caution to others. He should, therefore, pay a fine of 10s, or be imprisoned for a fortnight.

Smith was next charged with stealing a quantity of timber, cut up for palings, also the property of Mrs. Moore. Ephraim GILHOOLY deposed that on the 14th of November, he met Smith going to dinner, with some of the paling sticks, under his arm, and told him he should return back with him; Smith then threw the palings down and when he saw Mr. Johnston coming, asked witness to "make it as light as he could on him."......The Chairman said that he (Smith) could not advance the excuse that might be offered for such conduct by the poor of Cavan--the high price of fuel. He should pay a fine of 10s, or be imprisoned for a fortnight, at the termination of his former sentence. Smith at first requested a week's time, but afterwards paid both fines.


John James M'CABE summoned John KANE and Ellen KANE for using abusive and threatening language towards him in the streets of Cavan. It appeared from M'Cabe's statement that about three weeks since Kane and his wife assaulted him and his wife, interfered with his "stand"--Kane being a rival merchant in the fruit trade--upset and scattered, at the mercy of apple-loving urchins, 5s. 6d. worth of "Kerry pippins,"......and other choice varieties of the apple tribe--without having received the slightest provocation. Naturally indignant at such illegal and unneighbourly conduct, M'Cabe summoned Kane and his spouse, but was afterwards induced to compromise the matter on be remunerated for his losses, and receiving his costs and a promise from Kane not to interfere with his "stand" or himself in future. This promise Kane broke.......Finally, at the suggestion of the Clerk, M'Cabe consented to withdraw his charge on receiving his costs and a promise that Kane and his wife would not in future give him personal or professional annoyance..

[Transcriber's note: the next several cases are mostly illegible.]


Sylvester WALLACE brought a civil bill process against (?) M'LENEHAN for £1 18s., amount of shop goods...but the defendant (who became bankrupt, and was discharged some time since) which the debt was to be recovered and had been entered...The Court (illegible) the schedule served as a receipt, and dismissed the case without costs.


James BRADY, of Clonervy, summoned Edward FINNEGAN, for having interfered with, and damaged his (illegible). The case was before the court on a former occasion, and left to the decision of W. A. Moore, Esq,.... but Mr. John Armstrong now appeared for Brady, stated that Mr. Moore declined to investigate the case. After considerable discussion, it was decided to leave the case to the decision of Mr. Thomas REILLY, Butlersbridge, and Mr. George GRAHAM, Clonervy.


Constable NEADOM charged John BRADY with having been drunk and disorderly in Butlersbridge, and stated that he would not make any defence. Fined 2s. 6d.


Bridget M'CABE, Anne LEMON, Elizabeth KELLY, Anne BOYLAN, Anne LYNCH, Elizabeth TIMMON, Catherine BRACKEN, and two or three other females of bad character were charged, at the suit of Town Commissioner, with trespassing, and causing a nuisance and obstruction on the Fair Green of Cavan....Some of the defendants did not appear, and it was stated that they had gone to the Workhouse....The Chairman said he would postpone the case for a week; but they should attend again on next Court day if they continued on the Fair Green, and the Commissioner pressed the charge against them, they would be apt to be severely punished.


Hugh M'BRIDE was charged with having stolen two pigs, the property of Hugh BRADY. The informations...stated that on the night of the 11th of early on the morning of the 12th November, some person stole two pigs, value 10l., his property; saw the pigs afterwards at the railway station in Cavan....The informations of John LORD, pig-dealer, Dublin, stated that on the last fair of Cavan, he purchased two pigs....which pigs were afterwards claimed was given to Hugh Brady; the person from whom he purchased the pigs was a little fellow, about five feet (illegible) and about twenty years of age.

The informations of Constable Edward FITZGERALD, of Dundalk, stated that on the 13th of November, he arrested the prisoner in Dundalk, who gave his name as John GIMBLE, but when taken to the station, said his name was Hugh M'BRIDE; on his person were found a 5l. note and 3l. 8s. 5½d. Lord and Brady fully identified the prisoner, who, was then cautioned, and asked if he wished to make any statement, said he never stole a pig or sold one.

The witnesses having been bound over to prosecute, the prisoner was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

The Court then rose.


The Ribbonmen of Donegal have taken to other pastime than that of cutting off sheep's tails. A human being--a man living the life of honesty, and earning the bread of industry--has been brutally murdered. James MURRAY, land steward to Mr. John G. ADAIR, is described by some of our "liberal" contemporaries as "the Scotch land steward on Mr. Adair's property"--as if his dialect should serve as an excuse for the destruction of his life. The deceased went out on his business on the morning of Tuesday week, and was never afterwards seen alive On the following Thursday he was discovered "lying cold and stiff at the foot of a deep declivity." His head was broken, and his face much cut and disfigured. A revolver which he carried was picked up near his corpse, broken into pieces, one of the chambers of which had only been discharged. A stone with human hair and blood upon it was picked up in the vicinity of the murder, and footsteps were traced--one being the bare-footed mark of a large-sized man. Yet with all the circumstances, it would appear that some "patriot" supposed the possibility of MURRAY's death having been caused by his falling down the declivity...One thing appears certain--that he was first disarmed, and then murdered..If the Government directed some of its art of scheming towards the Ribbon lodges, it would be more profitably employed than in creating places for its partisans. It appears that several parties have been arrested on suspicion, and we trust that the authorities will be successful in fixing on the guilty, and then in advancing evidence sufficient to hand them.

DASTARDLY ATTACK ON THE PROPRIETOR OF THE "SLIGO INDEPENDENT."--On Saturday night last a most cowardly and ferocious attack was made on Alexander GILLMOR, Esq., the proprietor of the above paper. Mr. Gillmor was standing in his shop, leaning on the counter, about eight o'clock, on the night in question, when a ruffian came in, and without saying a word, struck him a violent blow on the eye. Such was the force of the blow that Mr. Gillmor was completely stunned, and sent staggering against a book-case behind, leaving him pouring blood from his nose. The fellow then made his escape. There were in the shop at the time--Dr. LOUGHHEED, Mrs. Gillmor, and her sister; but the consternation caused was so great that the fellow got clear off.....We are glad, however, to say that Mr. Gillmor is not seriously hurt....SLIGO INDEPENDENT

County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project

Ireland Home Page
County Cavan

IMPORTANT NOTICE: All rights to the pages found within this site are retained by the original submitter of the information. Pages may be printed or copied for personal use only. They may NOT be reproduced in any form in whole or in part by any individual or organization for profit.