Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan
August 3, 1861

RETURNED EMIGRANTS--One of the Drogheda steamers, the Brian Boroimhe, arrived from Liverpool about one o'clock on Monday, bringing to that port about twenty Irishmen who had been living in the State of Massachusetts for the last ten or twelve yeas. In order to escape the consequences of war, these parties, and a great many others, have returned home. From their appearance they seem not have come back with empty pockets.


(From our own Correspondent)

Before John H. ADAMS, Esq., J.P., and Benjamin S. ADAMS, Esq., J.P.

...A charge preferred by a young man named M'CLUSKY against another named HAND, wherein the latter was accused of presenting a gun and threatening to shoot the complainant, some quarrel having arisen about a pass. Several witnesses were examined, and the swearing was quite opposite.

One of the gentlemen on the Bench observed that such was the disturbed and unruly state of the place he thought it ought to be proclaimed. Some of the witnesses stated that there was no intention or appearance of violence, but these were flatly contradicted by others, who were also present during the proceedings.

At the conclusion HAND was obliged to get security to keep the peace towards complainant, &c., for twelve months, or get imprisoned four weeks.

A young man named FOY, processed a person named BROWN for 26s. due by him for scutching flax.

Defendant said he paid for the flax scutched for him, and that the quantity for the dressing of which Mr. FOY now sought to charge him belonged to another person--a woman named HOPKINS.

In answer to this Mr. FOY said defendant guaranteed to pay him, and on his account he gave flax to Mrs. HOPKINS. He also produced Peter LIGGETT, his foreman, to prove he heard this agreement made..--Others were present also when BROWN agreed to pay. Judgment for complainant.

The other cases were of no public interest.


Magistrates present:--Wm. BABINGTON, Esq., in the chair; and Captain CARDEN.


An impetuous-looking juvenile rejoicing in the euphonistic name of Thomas RAHALL summoned a woman named Honora ROONY for having assaulted him, but striking him with a stone, as he was passing through the Main-street of Cavan, in company with three other boys. Defendant handed a letter to the Court, from which and her own statement it appeared that Master RAHALL laughed at and otherwise provoked her to the use of the missile; that he is in the habit of lurking about her house;--on amorous thought intent--for the purpose of holding communication with her sister, and that he even induced that young lady, on one occasion, to leave home with him for a week. To these statements, Romeo RAHALL gave an indignant denial, and stoutly asserted that he had no wish to go near Mrs. ROONY's domicile, or gain the affections of her sister; he had no wish "to join the connection"--he despised "the connection"--...The Court considered that Master RAHALL had provoked the assault and dismissed the case, with a good advice to Mrs. ROONEY and her friend.


James BRADY, of Clonervy, summoned Owen CUSACK for trespassing on his bog, and cutting and carrying away rushes therefore. Both parties claimed the bog, and, as a question of title thus arose, the Court dismissed the case.


Mr. John REILLY, of Butlersbridge, had a civil bill process against Michael MOORE for £1 11s. 8½d, balance of £1 16s. 8½d., due for shop goods. The defendant did not appear. The debt and promise to pay having been proved, a decree was given for the amount claimed, with 3s. 6d. costs.


The charge pending against Bernard SMITH for an aggravated assault on ________M'KERNAN, by cutting him with a reaping hook, was again called. The complainant did not appear, being unable to leave the infirmary. The defendant was also absent, although bound to appear from Petty Sessions to Petty Sessions...

Eliza COLWELL (who is still under medical treatment in the infirmary) came forward to prosecute her charge of assault against Phillip LYONS. The defendant did not appear. Neither did complainant's witnesses, although summonses were served on the by the police. John LYONS (defendant's father), one of the bailiffs on Lord Lanesborough's estate, said that Mr. Thomas REILLY had arranged to settle the case on Wednesday. Sub-Inspector NAPIER said that he spoke to Mr. Thomas REILLY a few evenings previously, and he expressed his readiness to try and settle the case on Wednesday, if the parties wished to refer it to him. (Transcriber's note: Eliza COLWELL stated she want to continue with the case and it was postponed for another week.)

A rough looking customer named Patt REILLY was brought up in custody, charged with having been one of a party who assaulted Thomas KEANY and _________SKELLY, in the public-house of Edwd. CUSACK, at Grilly. KEANY and his friend (whose bandaged head bore strong evidence of the assault) refused to identify the prisoner, although they were positive concerning him when swearing informations. Two girls who were present at the assault were troubled with equally defective memories, and as there was no evidence against him, the prisoner was discharged.

The Court then rose.


On the 28th ultimo, at Bridge-street, Cavan, the wife of Mr. Arthur ELLIS, merchant, of a son.


July 26, at Temp Church, by the Rev. J. WHITAKER, Mr. John CHENEY, Lankhill, Enniskillen, to Mary Jane, eldest daughter of the late Mr. John ARMSTRONG, Ross, county Fermanagh.


At Bridge-view Cottage, Enniskillen, on Sunday, the 28th July, Miss Elizabeth GAMBLE.

August 10, 1861


On Monday morning an inquest was held at the Farnham Arms Hotel, Cavan, on the body of Mrs. Rose REILLY, relict of the late Mr. James REILLY, proprietor of that establishment, who died on the previous morning. The following were sworn on the jury by William POLLOCK, Esq., Coroner:--Mr. James HOPKINS, Foreman; Messrs. William FINLAY, Thomas William SIXSMITH, James BRADY, Edward MALLON, John MAGUIRE, John HART, John KING, John CRONLY, John Jones MERVYN, Charles QUEALE, and Richard LYNCH.

Sub-Inspector NAPIER, Acting-Constable KERRY and a Sub-Constable were in attendance.

Mr. TULLY, solicitor, attended on behalf of the deceased's family.

Dr. James MATTHEWS was then sworn and examined--Is a physician and surgeon; resides in Cavan; has know deceased for several years; about a week after death of her husband deceased caught a cold; I was called in to attend her...I used to visit her occasionally...I consider that her death occurred from general debility....The Coroner informed the jury that they could have a post mortem examination of the body, if they considered it necessary, but the jury were unanimously of opinion that there was no occasion for such an examination...Mr. TULLY said he wished to state to the jury the reason why the inquest was held. Rumours and reports circulated about the town during the previous day that the deceased had not been properly treated--that her son, being a medical man, might have given her improper medicines. The jury could examine any of the inmates of the house, and so satisfy themselves of the truth or falsehood of these rumours--clear up the characters of the members of deceased's family, or punish them, if they deserved it...

Betty CONLAN was examined and deposed that she has resided in the house, as assistant during the last seven years; deceased was always delicate; she was in the habit of taking a little whiskey and water occasionally...Mrs. Catherine BRADY, daughter of deceased, who was greatly affected, was next examined, and corroborated the previous witnesses as to the general health and habits of deceased, attention shown her during her illness, &c.

Mr. TULLY said he had no wish to keep back any evidence the jury might consider necessary, and tendered Dr. REILLY, deceased's son, for examination. The jury, however, were unanimous of opinion that no further evidence was necessary...there was no necessity at all for the inquest....they returned the following verdict:--"We find that the deceased, Rose REILLY, died of general debility, and that no blame is attachable to the members of her family or any one else."


Magistrates present:--Wm. M. HICKSON, Esq., R.M., Chairman; and Captain CARDEN


Mr. John DOWNEY, draper, Main-street, Cavan, summoned Patrick CALLORY, tailor, for having "damaged and spoiled certain materials of cloth" entrusted to him for the manufacture of a pair of peg-top continuations for complainant's son.

Mr. M'GAURAN appeared for the defendant, and, after referring to the Petty Sessions Act, said that the Court had no power to compel a tailor to make clothes properly, although it might be very desirable that tailors could be compelled to give a proper fit...Complainant said that the inexpressibles were not made according to order, and were so "tight" that he had considerable trouble in pulling them off his son after he fitted them on....In reply to complainant, (defendant) admitted that he "let out" the trousers since they were returned to him. The Chairman said the case should be dismissed, as the Court had no jurisdiction.


Thomas CUSACK, Thomas SMITH, Bernd. REILLY, and Patrick HYLAND were charged with having, in company with others, assaulted Peter SKELLY and Thomas KEANY, on Sunday, the 21st July. KEANY and SKELLY and a number of other witnesses were examined for the prosecution...It appeared that SKELLY and KEANY were drinking with their sisters in a public-house when they were violently assaulted and beaten by a large party of men...All the accused were identified as having taken part in the assault, with the exception of CUSACK--the charged against whom was dismissed. HYLAND was sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment, and SMITH and REILLY to a month's imprisonment each, with hard labour. The Chairman directed the police to notify the case to Sub-Inspector NAPIER--as the house in which the assault occurred does not seem to be a very well-conducted one.


Rose SMITH, a well-dressed young girl, charged Catherine FLYNN and Mary SMITH having assaulted her. Complainant stated--On Sunday week I was coming from church at Kilmore; it came on to rain, and I went into Mr. BEATTY's; when the shower was over I came out again...when I met these two girls; they attacked me; Mary SMITH caught me by the cape; the other girl took the umbrella, and hit me with it; she gave me a rap on the head..I made my escape and ran back to Mr. BEATTY's house; they followed me into the room; the man put them out...My father and mother are dead since I was a child...I am living with Protestants since...I took the notion of turning Protestant two or three years ago...I was only at church six times; Catherine FLYNN and Mary SMITH are sisters of mine..they were not pleased with me for going to church...The Chairman said he would take their own recognizances in the sum of £2 10s each, to keep the peace for twelve months and cautioned them against using violence towards their sister any more, and she was old enough to act for herself.

Mary SMITH (who was crying) thanked his Worship, and Catherine FLYNN said that complainant was "welcome to go wherever she likes--we disown her for a sister."


Matthew JAMES summoned William TUMMON under the following circumstances:--JAMES keeps a "float," and is employed by shopkeepers and others to convey goods to and from the railway station, &c. He gave TUMMON charge of his cart and horse, and agreed to give him 1s. 3d. for conveying to the Newtownbutler railway station the bags of flour, which had been sent by railway to Cavan...The bags were all right when JAMES gave them in charge to TUMMON, but after the latter had delivered them in Newtownbutler it was ascertain that one of the bags had been pillaged of a portion of the flour....The Chairman said the person to whom defendant delivered the bags in Newtownbutler should have been produced in order to prove to the state in which he received them...Mr. Armstrong said that person....could (be) produce(d) in next Court day, and applied for a postponement until them.

The chairman said he would "nil" the case, and a fresh summons could be taken out.

TUMMON had a summons against JAMES for 1s. 6d. for the conveyance of the flour...but it was not gone into--the same rule being made as in the other case.


James BRADY, of Clonervy, summoned Owen CUSACK, of Pottle, for having trespassed on a plot of bog, his property, and cut and carried away a quantity of rushes....After considerable contradictory evidence, &c., a suggestion was made to refer the case to Mr. MOORE. To this course BRADY at once agreed, but CUSACK...would not at first consent; he at length agreed to do so, however, and the case was accordingly referred to Mr. MOORE.


Magistrates present:--Captain Michael PHILLIPS, and the Rev. E.W.B. VENABLES.

Farrell REILLY summoned Patrick FITZPATRICK for malicious trespassing on his bog, and damaging his turf. The defendant did not appear, and as REILLY could not prove the actual amount of injury done to his turf, defendant was only fined 6d. and costs for the trespass.

Luke FOY, of Redhills, processed John MONAGHAN, of same place, for £1 6s. cash lent in June 1861--Mr. KNIPE appeared for defendant, who had a set-off, by which it appeared that plaintiff owned him 2s. 7½d. The Court dismissed the case, with 1s. costs.

Michael GANNON summoned Patrick GANNON, his brother for taking and holding forcible possession of a dwelling house. Mr. KNIPE appeared for the defendant, and it appeared by his statement and defendant's testimony that the Court had no jurisdiction...the mother of the GANNONS (who survived her husband some time) having died without making a will, and thus left the brothers with equal rights to the dwelling house until letters of administration be taken out. The Court dismissed the case.

Hugh NUNN summoned James CAMPBELL for the sum of 5s., wages earned by the execution of a decree for defendant. Defendant stated that he had bargained with plaintiff for the sum of 4s. to be given only in case of the decree being paid; that a settlement had taken place; and that plaintiff had received 1s. 3d, his legal fee....NUNN also summoned CAMPBELL for the sum of 10s. for the execution of a decree, at his own request, on defendant himself--a kind of "friendly" decree...Defendant admitted the facts, but had a "set-off"...The case was dismissed without prejudice.

The Court shortly after rose.

August 17, 1861


Magistrates present:--Captain Michael PHILLIPS, Chairman; John LITTON, Esq., John ROGERS, Esq., and W. M. HICKSON, Esq., R.M.


The Rev. William M'CAULEY, parish priest of Killoughter, Redhills, sought to recover the sum of 13s., amount of an appraiser's bill, for loss and damage of two cows, the property of Alexander M'DOWELL, having trespassed on his oat crop, on the 3rd of August.

Michael WALSH and Ellen KELLAGHER proved the trespass. Jack LYTTLE, the well-known appraiser, stated that the damage to the oats amount to 9s. 6d. and his own fees, for appraising and as a witness formed the remainder of the amount claimed by complainant.

The defence was two-fold--that the cows did not belong to defendant, but to his mother, with whom he resides; and that they did not damage the oats to the amount sought to be recovered. As complainant's witnesses could not swear that defendant's cows had caused all the damage, the Court imposed only the ordinary trespass fine--2s., and costs.

Thomas MADILL, of Redhills, sought to recover the sum of 10s. from Thomas MORRIS, for damage caused to his meadow by the trespass of defendant's three heifers, on the 21st of June. Defendant was fined 3s. and costs.


The County Surveyor v. Anthony M.'ILGAN(sp?), Patrick M'GINNELL,and Michael M'GINNELL

The first-named defendant is contractor for a portion of the road between Cavan and Enniskillen...near the verge of the barony of Tullygarvey. The other two defendants were his sureties...Mr. P. DOHERTY, Deputy Surveyor, proved that the road was almost impassable when he examined it on the 7th instant. The defence was the that contractor had been preparing road stuff in the quarry, but could not apply it in consequence of the inclemency of the weather...The Court ordered the contractor to pay the costs of the summons, and allowed him a fortnight's time to put the road in proper order.

The County Surveyor v. Thomas HINCH, jun., Thomas HINCH, sen., and Peter DONNELLY

This summons was of the same description as the last. The first-named defendant is contractor for the keeping in repair of 850 perches of the public road leading from Cavan to Belturbet...The defence set up was the same as in the previous case. The Court ordered the contractor to pay the costs of the summons, and allowed him a month's time to put the road in repair.


John REILLY summoned Michael BLAKE for the sum of 4s., wages earned by one day's mowing for plaintiff, in 1860. It appeared that plaintiff contracted with defendant to mow a certain quantity of meadow for £2. He performed his agreement, and was paid for it, but the sum now claimed was for extra mowing...At the time the plaintiff did the mowing defendant acted as temporary steward to John E. VERNON, Esq., J.P., but has been since discharged. Defendant admitted the truth of plaintiff's statements; he forgot to give plaintiff's bill for the 4s. to Mr. VERNON, and could not tell whether defendant had been paid it; but he contended that he was not liable, as he only acted on the part of his employer, Mr. VERNON. The Court gave a decree for the amount claimed, with costs.

Henry MAINES summoned Patrick PRUNTY, of Clowninny, for 4s., wages earned by repairing a cart wheel for defendant. Defendant did not appear and the Court gave a decree for the amount claimed, with 4s. costs.

Hugh NAAN summoned James CAMPBELL for 5s., wages earned by the execution of a decree for defendant. The particulars of the case were given last week, when it was postpone for the production of a witness. James MOORE was now produced, and corroborated plaintiff's account of the agreement made by him with defendant. Decree for 5s., with costs.


Magistrates present:--Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., Chairman; and Nathaniel MONTGOMERY, Esq.


Mrs. Elizabeth HAUGHTON, confectioner, Main-street, summoned her hired servant, Catherine CONNELL, for misconduct.

Mrs. HAUGHTON's son stated that his mother was too ill to attend the Court; and that defendant was in the habit of stealing cakes, milk, butter--anything eatable or drinkable she could lay hands on--and also of using abusive language and threats towards himself and his mother.

Defendant (for whom Mr. M'GAURAN appeared) alleged that Mrs. HAUGHTON almost starved her, and that she took some cakes on one occasion when pressed by hunger; and she also stated that Mrs. HAUGHTON's son called her improper names, &c.

The Court considering that there had been faults on both sides, dismissed the case, without costs...


Sub-Constable HAMILTON, of Butlersbridge, summoned Phillip NULTY for having been drunk on the public street of Butlersbridge on the 4th inst.; and James BURNS for having committed a similar offence on the following day. They are both elderly men, and pleaded guilty to the charge. As it was their first offence, they were fined only 6d., each, and the costs.

Sub-Constable HAMILTON had a similar charge against Edward Edward WARD and Patrick KEOGH, who also pleaded. As this was the second the former, and the fourth by the latter, within the past year, they were fined respectively 1s. and 5s.


Sub-Constable KEALY summoned John GUNN for having allowed his dog to wander, unlogged and unmuzzled, on the public street of Ballyhaise. Mr. GUNN is a well-known sporting character, and does an extensive trade in the "peltry" of hares, rabbits, and other "varmint."...The Court fined John (GUNN) 1s. and costs, and told him that if he had any charge against the police, he could summon them. John hoped the fine would not be levied "until after Tuesday," as all his capital was "laid out in skins." His application was granted.


Captain WRIGHT, Staff Officer, applied to the Court under the following circumstances: On the 8th of April he was at Ballyconnel, and paid the pensioners in the Court-house. Whilst doing so he missed four £5 notes. He had all the pensioners searched, at their own request. Amongst them was a man named Hugh CLIFFERDY, who had been paid his pension, and left the Court-house, but was sent for, and he produced the full amount of pension received by him, but in different coin--namely a £1 note, and the remainder in silver...Captain WRIGHT reported the case to the was ascertained that CLIFFERDY had £4 in his possession--£2 more than he could account for...The case was one of grave suspicion, and it would be for a jury to investigate it.


Robert HALLIDAY, of Deggan, summoned John BROWNE for keeping at large a dangerous dog, which attacked and injured complainant's son, but biting him in the side. Evidence was given that the dog was very ferocious, and the marks of his teeth were plainly visible in the boy's side. The Court gave an order for the destruction of the dog.


Martin MALLON and Timothy DOWLING were sentenced to 48 hours' imprisonment each for begging in the public streets. They did not appear, having left the town.


Sarah STEEVENS and Margt. M'CABE summoned Johnny KEOGH for an assault. The complainants are street beggars, and Sally had realised a shilling, which she gave to M'CABE to get changed, in order that an outstanding account between them might be arranged. M'CABE applied to 'Johnny' for the change, and, with characteristic politeness, he gave it to her. She thanked him, and left his shop, but returned immediately afterwards, saying that he had given her a bad penny. Not loving contradiction, Johnny gave her a faultless penny for the one objected. She again returned with a bad halfpenny which she said he had also given her. This raised Johnny's dander....STEEVENS was standing at or near the door during the whole transaction. She alleged (and her evidence was corroborated by M'CABE) that Johnny dragged and kicked her, pulled her hair, and knocked her down; but this was entirely contradicted by three witnesses, who proved that he only tried to remove her from his shop...The case was dismissed.

DECEASE OF HUGH BRACKEN, ESQ., OF TOAM, BLACKLION...Mr. BRACKEN departed this life on Thursday, the 8th inst. His funeral was attended by an immense number of people, including many of the respectable inhabitants Fermanagh and Cavan--all desirous of showing respect to his memory.

August 24, 1861


Magistrates present:--William BABINGTON, Esq., Chairman; William SMITH, Esq., and William M. HICKSON, Esq., R.M.


This was a process for the recovery of £1 5s., amount of 25 weeks' rent of a house.... Anthony JONES, Mrs. CLEMENGER's son-in-law, was the only witness examined, and it appeared that his name should have been in the process as plaintiff. The case was dismissed.

Sub-Constable MORAN v. Patrick OWENS

Complainant was conveying a prisoner to the barrack on the 12 inst., when defendant caught him by the neck, and otherwise obstructed him in the discharge of his duty. Defendant did not appear, but service of the summons having been proved, he was sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment, with hard labour.

Sub-Constable WALLACE v. Catherine DORAN, Ellen REILLY, Margaret M'PARTLAND, Margt. M'CABE, and Sarah STEEVENS

This was a charge of begging, complainant having seen defendants clustered around Mr. HAMILTON's carriage, as that gentleman was leaving the Protestant Orphan Society's bazaar, at the Court-house, on the 14th instant, and they were apparently soliciting him, but complainant did not hear them do so.

The Court dismissed the case, as they did not consider the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge against defendants, to whom they administered a caution.

Bridge SMITH v. Patrick LEE

Plaintiff sought to recover £1, amount of a quarter's wages, from 5th August to 5th November, 1861, defendant having turned her away without any just cause. According to plaintiff's statement, she asked £1 a quarter when hiring with defendant; he offered her 10s, which she refused, and they made no agreement; she worked with him for 11 days...The Court did not consider that an agreement had been entered into, and "nilled" the case...


Plaintiff claimed £2 0s. 10½d., balance of wages earned at coopering work. Plaintiff's statement was to the effect that he was employed by defendant on the 14th of May at 6s. a week; at the end of eight weeks he told defendant he would work no longer unless he received 9s. a week; defendant would not agree to this, but said he would "see him pleased," or some such words; he continued with him and worked in all 14 weeks...The Court considered that plaintiff was entitled to 6s. a week for the 14 weeks, and gave a decree for the balanced due to him.

Peter SKELLY and Thomas KEANY v. Michael BRADY, John GALLIGAN, and Owen CONATY

The defendants were charged with having taken part in the attack upon complainants in the public-house of Francis CAHILL, at Carrickaboy, on Saturday, the 21 of July, the particulars of which were given in the OBSERVER of the 10th inst....Neither SKELLY nor KEANY could identify defendants...and there being no other evidence, the case was dismissed, the Court cautioning defendants against frequenting dancing-houses and public-houses on Sundays.

Terence MURRAY v. James MARTIN, John M'AUAY, and Michael MURRAY.

This was a charge of waylay and assault, in which informations were sworn. Complainant said he did not wish to prosecute, and hoped the Court would allow him to forgive the prisoners. The Chairman said that he should prosecute, or forfeit a sum of £10 by having his recognizances estreated.

Complainant was then sworn, and stated that on the 15th instant he was returning from the fair of Cavan, with a scythe, and at the end of the town he met the prisoners...they kicked and knocked him down several times; at length he ran away...Sub-Constable EDWARDS said there were three or four hundred persons about the archway at the time. The Chairman said that the case was one of the most aggravated and unprovoked assaults which had ever, perhaps, come before the Court. On a fair day--in a crowded street--without having received the slightest provocation--the prisoners walked up to a man who was going quietly home....assaulted him in a most brutal and cowardly manner...The prisoners should, therefore, be imprisoned for two months each, and kept to hard labour.

Constable SHEALDS v. James DOLAN

The defendant was charged with having been drunk and disorderly on the public streets. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. and costs.

Arthur ELLIS v. Owen HEEL

This was a very peculiar case, and excited considerable interest in court and throughout the town. The charge against defendant was that he sold to complainant five firkins of butter, and obtained from him the price of five firkins, whereas he had and delivered to complainant, only three firkins--thereby defrauding him of the price of two firkins....The Court decided to send the case for trial and admitted HEEL to bail--himself in the sum of £20, and two sureties in £10 each. The Chairman and Mr. HICKSON informed Mr. ELLIS that they considered he should not compromise the case, even should the money be refunded to him. Mr. ELLIS said he had no intention of compromising the case.

The Court then rose.

CORONER'S INQUESTS--Montgomery D. NIXON, Esq., held an inquest on Monday last at Skea, on the body of a female child found drowned at a place where the flood crosses the old road at Derrygiff. A man named Bernard MAGINIS found the child. Dr. NIXON after having examined the body stated as his opinion that the child was alive when born, and its death was caused by drowning. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown....Mr. NIXON, also on same day, held an inquest on another female infant found drowned in the lake at Portora, under the Old Castle. It had been in the water for upwards of three weeks, and was in a state of decomposition...The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown.


Sligo, Monday, August 19--This morning, pursuant to his sentence, the wretched culprit, Mathew PHIBBS, was executed in front of our county gaol in this town, for the murder of William CALAGHAN in Ballymote. For more than twenty-six years there had not been a public execution in Sligo.

August 31, 1861


Before Thomas Frederick KNIPE, Esq., J.P., Chairman; John LITTON, Esq., J.P.; David Fielding JONES, Esq., J.P.; and William Murray HICKSON, Esq., R.M.


This was a summons for recovery of wages earned by plaintiff as servant to defendant, who is his uncle. The latter had a set-off for £1, which he claimed for having taught plaintiff to read, and also claimed allowance for some days upon which plaintiff absented himself from his service. Plaintiff did not deny the agreement to pay for instruction in reading; but he denied that he could read, and that he had any right to pay for instruction by which he did not benefit. Defendant and his wife swore that plaintiff could read very well, and that the Rev. Mr. MOFFATT heard him do so on several occasions.

The case was postponed for the Rev. Mr. MOFFATT's evidence.

James M'MILLAN v. Thomas JONES

This case again came for re-hearing. The summons stated that defendant feloniously attempted to take away complainant's life by snapping a gun at him, on the 1st July, at Tallyroan.

Complainant then stated--On the 1st of July I was at the land of Tullyroan, talking to Elias JONES, opposite Elias JONES's door; my back was half inclined towards Thomas JONES's house; whilst talking to Elias JONES my attention was drawn to something like the click of a gun; I did not know what it was until I turned round; when I turned round I saw a gun quite close to me; the gun was in Thomas JONES's hand; I think the noise I heard was the click of the nipple of the gun against the hammer; the gun was pointed towards my hip; something in the Russian style...(Lengthy examination and cross-examination of witnesses)

Subsequently M'MILLAN handed up a note to Mr. HICKSON, and, in reply to that gentleman, said he wanted to make an application to swear informations against JONES for unlawfully carrying arms in a proclaimed district. Mr. HICKSON said that was a matter for those who had charge of the peace of the district, and not for private individuals.

Bernard MAGUIRE v. John CONNOLLY, Hugh M'MAHON, and Margaret M'MAHON

This was a summons for taking forcible possession. The nominal complainant was merely a caretaker, and the real question at issue was whether the house belongs to the widow or son of the late Mr. Babington LYTTLE, of Redhills, both of whom claim it--Mrs. LYTTLE under a will produced in Court, and her step-son under one which he stated he had at home.

The Court dismissed the case--the question of title placing it beyond their jurisdiction.


The complainant charged defendant with having injured his mearing "ditch" or wall, by removing a quantity of the stones. Defendant denied the charge, but was fined 6d. and costs.


The complainant is a contractor for a portion of the road between Cavan and Ballyconnell, and the object of his summons was to obtain an order to enter upon defendant's land at Creeny, and obtain stones from a quarry there, for the purposes of his contract.

Defendant alleged that there was a more convenient quarry in another person's land, at the opposite side of the road, and asked for a postponement, in order to produce evidence to that effect.

The case was postponed for a week.

The Court then rose.


Before Wm. BABINGTON, Esq., J.P., Chairman; Captain CARDEN, J.P., and Wm. Murray HICKSON, Esq., R.M.

Peter CORCORAN v. Patrick CUSACK

This was a summons for cutting and injuring a fence, but there was no foundation for it, and it was dismissed.


A summons to recover possession of a house in the town of Cavan, lately held by defendant as weekly tenant, the tenancy having terminated by notice to quit, &c. Decree to possession given.

Thomas FIZIMONS and John BRADY v. James M'DERMOTT and Cornelius REILLY

Mr. M'GAURAN appeared for complainants, and said the charge was one of waylay and assault. His clients were going quietly home toward Butlersbridge from Cavan, on the last fair night of this town, when they were met by the defendants, who were in company with a number of others, and severely beaten by them.

Mr. TULLY appeared for defendants, and said that the waylaying and assaulting were on the part of complainants. His clients were going peaceably home from Cavan, when they were followed and attacked by complainants, who were drunk and disorderly. All parties worked as "navvies" on the railway, but M'DERMOTT was what is called a "ganger," and, by discharging some men, had earned the ill will of complainants and their friends, who assaulted him on a former occasions, burned his cap, compelled him to change his lodgings, and reside, for protection from them, next to the police barrack in Butlersbridge.

Evidence having been gone into on both sides, the case was dismissed.

Robert RAMSAY v. Mary BRADY.

Complainant charged defendant with having left his service, without his consent, on the 25th July, she being his hired servant.

The girl pleaded that she was unable to work, through illness, and her appearance, as well as her father's testimony, corroborated this statement.

The Court "nilled" the case--defendant to resume work as soon as able.

Peter BRADY v. Hugh PRIOR and George BUCHANAN

The complainant applied for a postponement of the case, as Mr. John Armstrong, whom he employed to conduct it, was unable to attend. Mr. M'Gauran opposed the application on behalf of defendants, unless complainant would pay the costs...After some conversation, Mr. BRADY consented to go on with the case without professional assistance and on being sworn, stated that he had 64 head of cattle grazing on his land; they got into the adjoining field, belonging to the Right Rev. Dr. BROWNE; he saw Hugh PRIOR, Dr. BROWNE's servant, driving them to the pound; his servant claimed the cattle before he got to the pound with them; he also demanded the cattle, and offered to pay for the trespass, but PRIOR persisted in impounding them; he also spoke to BUCHANAN's wife, and she had no board of tolls, although bound to keep one.....After further discussion, the case was dismissed.


Mrs. REILLY, wife of Mr. Terence REILLY, the late owner of the well-known tavern and extensive premises situated at the Drogheda Steampacket-quay, and Mary REILLY, her daughter, who moved in a respectable sphere of life, were committed to the Drogheda gaol by John MOORE, Esq., Mayor, under the following circumstances:--A servant man, who had been in the employment of Mr. Terence REILLY for some years, and whose name is Hugh BRACKEN, made an information to the effect that Mrs. REILLY and her daughter had offered to pay him a sum of £3 if he would set fire to the house, &c., so that they might obtain from the insurance company the amount for which the premises were insured....

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.