Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan
February 2, 1861


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

Sub-Constable CONNELL charged James DILLON and Bernard CORRIGAN with having being drunk in the public street of Ballyhaise on the night of the 24th January, and stated that, as far as he knew, neither of the defendants had been charged with a similar offence before. DILLON's excuse was that he had been at a funeral on the day in question, and being a "friend of the corpse," "of course he took a glass more than he was able to bear coming home." CORRIGAN made no defence. They were allowed to depart on paying the costs.

Feargus LEE v. John SMITH

This was a singular case. The defendant is an elderly man, a farmer, residing at Mullymagavan, within a short distance from complainant, who swore informations against him for stealing a shoe brush, his property, on Saturday, the 12th of January. The police, under Sergeant James M'CARTHY, of Stradone, went to Smith's house, after the informations were sworn, and found only his wife there, whom they arrested, and brought before R. BURROWES, Esq., J.P., D.L., but SMITH, on returning from market, entered into bail, and his wife was discharged. According to LEE's statement he had sold his home and land and was removing his furniture when several articles--a bedstead, six hens, and the brush--were stolen from him, as, he alleged, he believes, by defendant; but the brush was the only article found in defendant's house, and he swore positively that that brush, which he identified, was in his own possession on the 12th January. Defendant and his family used to assist him in removing his furniture, and frequently visited at his house. Defendant's son, an intelligent-looking young lad, swore that a couple of days before Christmas last his mother sent him to LEE's house, to borrow the brush, for the purpose of brushing her mantle, as she was going to the fair of Ballyjamesduff, and that LEE's daughter lent him the brush. LEE was not in the house at the time, but his wife was, and she sent her daughter back with him for some blacking, to polish her shoes. LEE's daughter went with him and polished her mother's shoes at his (SMITH's) house, but forgot the brush after her and it remained there until taken by the police. LEE's wife was not in Court, but was sent for and, after a considerable time, she made her appearance, and on being sworn, denied that the brush had been lent to SMITH, that he had ever asked for the loan of it, or that she had sent her shoes to be polished at his father's house. SMITH handed up an excellent character given of his wife by the Protestant Vicar and Roman Catholic clergyman of his parish, and said he could obtain similar testimonies of his own good character. In reply to the Court, LEE said he had never any quarrel with SMITH: but the latter detailed some circumstances which, if true, would show that SMITH fancied to he had a cause of quarrel with him. Finally the Court decided to postpone the case for the production of additional evidence on either side, as the evidence given was contradictory.

Bernard REILLY v. Alexander LAIRD

The summons was brought against defendant for "that he, on the 21st of January, did erect and keep a certain show on the public street of Cavan, to the annoyance of complainant, and contrary to the statute." Complainant's daughter, it appears, has been lying ill for some time past, and when defendant was about to erect his booth opposite complainant's door, at the end of the Main-street, he begged him to desist, as it would endanger his daughter's life to have a show booth so near the house, but defendant refused, and the booth was erected. Complainant then obtained a summons against defendant, and the case was to be tried at a special Petty Sessions on the following day. Both parties attended at the Court-house, but as only one magistrate (Mr. BABINGTON) was present, the case was not gone into. Complainant swore that his daughter has got worse since the erection of the booth, and complains that "that the music is ringing in her head," and a certificate was produced from Dr. MALCOMSON to the effect that "the noise usually attendant on a public show" would be dangerous to the health of REILLY's daughter. Mr. SMITH, Mr. KING, and other ratepayers of the neighbourhood deposed that the show was a nuisance to them. The minute book of the Town Commissioners was produced, and it appeared that on the petition of the ratepayers of that portion of the town it was decided that no show booths should be allowed there in future, but that they should be erected at a certain portion of the Farnham-road, "until a more suitable site can be provided"; and the Town Sergeant stated that he warned defendant not to erect his booth where he did, and offered to show him the place appointed by the Commissioners for that purpose. Defendant pleaded that he hired and payed rent for the ground occupied by his booth to a woman who claimed it as hers, and produced his agreement; and he also contended that the place did not form a portion of the public street as it had been enclosed as an egg market.....His Worship then read the 72nd section of 17th and 18th Victoria, defining what shall be legally considered a street and specifying the penalty to which the defendant had left himself liable. Complainant said he had no wish to press for a fine; all he wanted was to have the booth removed. Defendant, after considerable hesitation, agreed to remove his booth (which he has since done, to Church-lane), and the case was accordingly nilled--defendant paying the costs.

The Court then rose.

The inquest on the body found at Kilmore last week will, we understand, be resumed on Monday next, when PAYNE's mother (now in Dublin) is expected to be present.


The adjourned inquest on the murder of the brothers SHAW was resumed on Friday, the 25th ult., before Charles WADDELL, Esq., coroner. Henry G. JOHNSTON, Esq., with John CUNNINGHAM, Esq., the local justices, together with Mr. SINGLETON, R.M., and Charles M'KELVEY, Esq., S.I., attended. Mr. SINGLETON on the part of the Crown, stated to the coroner that there was no more evidence to lay before them. Mr. M'KELVEY and the police under his command had been most indefatigable in hunting up every report to procure what evidence they could, and he had now to say that, so far, he had no more evidence to lay before the jury.--The coroner then read over the entire evidence to the jury, who, after some deliberation came to the following verdict:--

"That James and Robert SHAW came to their death by gun-shot wounds, and that there was not sufficient evidence before them to say by whom these gun-shot wounds had been inflicted."

Mr. T. E. WRIGHT, solicitor, applied that the prisoners--SHAW, M'NIECE, and JACKSON--be discharged.--As to Jackson, he had, if the jury wished, complete evidence to show that he was in the house of his mistress on the night the SHAWs were murdered. The prisoners were consequently discharged.

A reward of 100l. has been offered for such information as will lead to the conviction of the perpetrator of the murder.

February 9, 1861



Magistrates present:--Wm. BABINGTON, Esq., Chairman; R. BURROWES, Esq., D.L.; and Capt CUMMING.

A soldier of the 16th Regiment of Infantry was brought up in custody of Sergeant O'BRIEN, of the Cavan Militia, charged with having deserted from the latter regiment. The prisoner was going home on furlough, and under the impression that he had committed no crime by enlisting in the line, passed by the barrack, when Sergeant O'BRIEN took him into custody. The Sergeant stated that the prisoner bore a good character in the Militia.

The case was allowed to stand over for some time, after which the Court remanded the prisoner for seven days, pending the order of the Secretary-at-War.

James RAHALL v. James M'INTYRE, John FINNEGAN, and Bernard REILLY.

This was a charge of assault, alleged to have been committed on the 27th ult., by defendants and others. An application was made to have the case postponed, as defendants had engaged Mr. John ARMSTRONG, who could not attend. The Court refused the application, and took the informations of complainant. Two witnesses for the defence were identified by complainant as having been of the party by whom he was assaulted. The case was ultimately adjourned until Monday next, the other parties charged to be summoned in the mean time.

Constable DUNNE v. Hugh

MAY Defendant is a "navvy," and was charged with drunkenness. He had been some hours in custody, and, in consequence of it being his first offence, and the general good conduct of his brother navvies, he was allowed to depart unmulcted.

Feargus LEE v. John SMITH

Complainant charged defendant with having stolen a brush. The case was reported in our last, and postponed for further evidence, as that given was contradictory. SMITH's wife appeared, but LEE did not produce his daughter to rebut the testimony of SMITH's son, who swore that he borrowed the brush. The case was dismissed, and the brush given to LEE.

Patrick CORCORAN v. Margaret TWEEDY

The case was brought to obtain possession of a house in Mudwall-row, held by defendant as weekly tenant to Miss Jane GALLAGHER. Notice to quit, &c., having been proved, a decree for possession was given--defendant being allowed the usual time.


This case was brought to recover wages due by defendant to plaintiff, who is a labourer. Defendant (or, rather , his wife) had a set-off for goods and money given to plaintiff and his wife. The swearing on both sides was contradictory, and the case was adjourned for further evidence.

There were no other cases.

INQUEST--The adjourned inquest on the skeleton remains of a human body found in Drumconwood, at Kilmore, on the 23rd ult. (an account of which appeared in our impression of the 26th ult.), was resumed at ten o'clock on Monday last, before Mr. POLLOCK, coroner, and the following jury:--Mr. Charles QUEALE, Foreman; Messrs. Edward MALLON, Edward O'CONNOR, Bernard BRADY, John CRONLY, William WALSH, William FINLAY, William M'GUINNESS, James SMITH, Phillip BRADY, John DOWNY, and James KELLY. It may be remembered that the inquest was adjourned for the purpose of obtaining the evidence of a woman named MATTHEWS, now residing in or near Dublin, and who formerly lived in the gate-house at Kilmore, as the general belief was...that the remains were those of Richard PAYNE, her son by her first husband. Richard PAYNE served ten years in the army, obtained his discharge, and in January 1859, was enrolled in the Cavan MIlitia. For some time after his discharge from the army, he partly resided with his mother and stepfather (who has since died); but in March or April, 1859, he disappeared suddenly, and was not heard of until the finding of the skeleton (if it be his) in Drumconwood. His mother had been duly summoned to attend at the adjourned inquest, but did not do so. His sisters came down from Dublin, and examined the shreds of clothing found with the remains, but they denied that these shreds were part of the clothing worn by their brother previous to his disappearance. These women were not examined at the inquest, having returned to Dublin previously. Dr. MALCOMSON was examined as to the appearance of the remains, probable period of death, and age of deceased, &c.; and a number of witnesses who had been acquainted with Richard PAYNE were examined as to his age, habits of life, dress at the time of disappearance, &c. Amongst the witnesses were some servants of the Lord Bishop of Kilmore. The evidence having closed, the jury returned the following verdict:--"That the decomposed skeleton remains are, in the opinion of the jury, that of Richard PAYNE, found dead in Drumconwood, on the 23rd of January, 1861; but how by what means deceased came by his death there is no evidence to show."

THE CONSTABULARY.--Constable William STEELE has, upon his own application, been removed from Ballinagh to Crossdony. He is succeeded in Ballinagh by Constable DONOGHUE, from Tyrone--Constable STEELE had charge of the Ballinagh station for a considerable period, during which he was most zealous in the discharge of his duty...


Judge HARGREAVE disposed of the following properties last week:--


Estate of Samuel HANKS, Owner and Petitioner Lot 1--A house and ground in Moorpart-street, Parsonstown, containing 1a. 1r. 21p.; profit rent, 43l; sold to Mr. A MITCHELL for 485l. 2--Same denomination, containing 4a. 1r. 21p.; yearly rent, 71l; sold to Mr. JULIAN (in trust) for 556l. 3--Moorpark Meadow, containing 7a. 2r.; yearly rent, 23l. 15s. 113.; sold to same (in trust) for 450l. MR. Simon CREAGH, solicitor.


Estate of T. H. WHITE, Owner and Petitioner. Lands Of Lara, containing 47a.; profit rent 21l 1s 7d, sold to the Rev. B. GASTLES for 55l. Mr. J. R. MARTIN, solicitor.


General Sir George SCOVEL, GOB, Colonel of the 4th Dragoons.
Lieutenant General--James Irwin WILES, from Royal Marines.
Major General--Samuel Brandram BOILEAU.
Colonels--Benjamin RIKY, 48F; Henry SENIOR,
Lieut. Col., ,ret. fullpay, 65 F.; Henry C. STREATHFIELD,
Lieut. Col. ret. full pay 67F.
Captains--William E. CATER, 3 F.; Robert MOORE, 5 F.; Frederick LOFTUS, unatt., John Henry Turner WARDE, unatt.
Second Captain--Henry CURTIS, h p. Royal Artillery.
Lieutenants--Charles Henry Blackley TURNER, 67 F.; Rowley MILLER, 88 F.; John Fleming HEARN, h p 60 F.; Henry James RUSSELL, h p 60 F.; Ernest von PATZINSKY, h p Brunswick Inf
Ensign--Henry Bowyer SMITH, 16 F. Paymaster--Henry William HALL, h p 39 F.
Surgeon Major--Arthur S. THOMPSON, Staff; William DENNY, ditto.
Surgeon--James JACKSON, 13 F.
Assistant Surgeon--Thomas RYAN, 6 F.
Apothecary--James Wooley SIMPSON, h p.

February 16, 1861


Before W. BABINGTON, Esq., J.P.

Thomas FARRELLY v. Hugh REILLY of Tonymore

The summons was brought against defendant for wilfully breaking and damaging a bird-cage, the property of complainant. The latter stated that the bird-cage ws hanging outside his door when defendant "ran his cart into it," and smashed it. The only reason for this conduct was that he (complainant) "had a few words" with defendant some days previously. He swore positively that defendant could have passed without injuring the case, and that he drove his cart against it wilfully.

Defendant denied that he had injured the cage--which he described asan"unlawful" one--intentionally, and said that complainant was not present at all when the cage was injured.

Complainant admitted that he was not; but still swore that the injury was wilfully committed.

His Worship asked how he could venture to swear such a thing unless he was present.

Complainant assigned several reasons for his knowledge of defendant's motive, the strongest of which was that his wife was witness to the transaction. His wife was called, but would not undertake to swear that defendant broke the cage wilfully, and his Worship dismissed the case, rebuking complainant for his "hard" swearing.

Hugh BRADY v. Augustus VANDEROY

This was a process for £3 5, amount of horse and cart hire, in drawing 65 loads of turf for defendant, at 1s per load. Defendant did not appear. Service having been proved, a decree was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

Sub-Constable WARD v. Peter BRADY

Defendant was fined 6d and costs for allow two cows and a heifer, h's property, to wander on the public road.

James RAHALL v Bernard REILLY, John FINEGAN, Phillip M'INTYRE, Edward M'CORMICK, Thomas GALLIGAN, and Thomas BRADY.

This was an assault case, postponed from the previous court day.

Mr. John ARMSTRONG appeared for the defendants.

The informations of complainant were read over, from which it appeared that on his way home, on the night of Sunday, the 27th ult., from the house of a man named Charley KEOGH, at Crumlin, where there had been a "dance," he was assaulted by defendants, and that threats had been previously used towards him in KEOH's house. Complainant was severely coss-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG, as was also a witness named BRADY, produced to corroborate his statements, and Mr. ARMSTRONG produced some witnesses for the defence, and as to character.

His Worship considered the charge proved, and sentenced REILLY and M'INTYRE to pay a fine of 15s, and costs each, or be imprisoned for a fortnight, as they had been the ringleaders; and the others to pay a fine of 10s, each, with costs, or be imprisoned for a fortnight. Both his Worship and Mr. ARMSTRONG strongly condemned the system of resorting to dancing-houses--the hotbeds of vice on Sunday, a practice but too prevalent in many parts of the country.

The fines were paid, and one-third given to the prosecutor.

The Court then adjourned.


On the 9th instant, at Abbey Lara Church, by the Rev. W. NOBLE, Vicar of Colomkille, assisted by the Rev. W. Nomlinson, Vicar of St. Mary's Granard, JOhn William FINCH, Esq., eldest son of William FINCH, Esq., Kilcolman, County Tipperary, to Harriet Amelia, widow of William H. Neligan, Esq., of Emblamore, Co. Roscommon, and fourth daughter of the late R. B. JESSOP, Esq., Mount-Jessop, Co. Longford.


February 13, MR. James M'MULKIN, National school master of Scrinney, Kesh, aged 75 years.

At Fivemiletown, on the 9th February, instant, Mary, relict of the late Dr. DENDRUM, aged 73 years.

FEBRUARY 23, 1861



Before W. BABINGTON, Esq., J.P., and Andrew CARDEN, Esq., J.P.

A YOUTHFUL WARRIOR William BLAIR, a youth of 15, were sworn in to serve as a volunteer in the Cavan Militia for five years.


Sub-Constable M'GOWAN, of Stradone, charged Patrick CONNELL and Bernard DOUGHTY with having been "drunk, quarrelling, and disorderly" on the night of Sunday, the 10th inst., and stated that he heard their war-whoops "half a mile before he came up to them;" when he did arrive at the scene of conflict they were battling in a horizontal position, "lying a-top of one another," and each experimenting upon his opponent's thorax and optics. DOUGHTY did not appear, but CONNELL did, and admitted that the constable's statement was "a fact;" himself and Barney had been drinking together, and "got a little hearty;" on their way home they quarrelled and were "fightin' a bit," but "no strokes were given," His Worship having expressed a wish to know the cause of quarrel between himself and Barney, Pat stated that "it all riz about a girl;" but he himself was not in fault--he "was never in fault in anything." His Worship said the "girls" were the cause of many a quarrel in all ages of the world and all classes of society, but Pat and his rival should pay a fine of 2s. 6d. each. Pat generously "stood the ready" for the absent DOUGHTY.


Thomas SMITH applied for leave to withdraw a charge of illegal rescue previously preferred by him against Peter M'LENEHON, publican, Bridge street, Cavan, as he had been aid the amount of the decree in endeavouring to execute which the alleged rescue was committed. One of the bailiffs (it appeared that he had five) employed by him in executing the decree supported the application; but another, named KANE, objected to having the charge withdrawn, as he had "received severe injuries" in the scuffle. M'LENEHON had a charge of assault against KANE, and the other bailiff, in the decree which he was willing to withdraw, and stated that he had been "stuck with a knife and bet with a stick" by the bailiffs when they were executing the decree. KANE asserted that the plaintiff in the decree had given it to M'LENEHON when he got his money; but M'LENEHON denied this. KANE alleged that he was in dread of his life, and was willing to swear that M'LENEHON used murderous threats towards him, which M'LENEHON denied, and said that KANE would "swear a hole through a pot," and also alleged that the decree had been tampered with previous to service, The cases were allowed to stand over for some time; but finally the Court ruled that they could not enter into the case against M'LENEHON, as the decree--which was the original foundation of the case--was not forthcoming. KANE expressed his dissatisfaction at this result, as SMITH had not paid him for his services, and had induced him to leave his work on the understanding that although he settled the decree, he would proceed with the charge of rescue. The Court informed him that he should summon SMITH if he had any claim against him.

The parties then left Court.


Catherine CORCORAN summoned Mary REILLY, of Stradone, for £ 19s. wages earned by her as hired servant to defendant--but as it appeared that defendant and her sister (the latter only of whom appeared) had been merely housekeeping for their brother, previous to his marriage, the Court nilled the case, and told plaintiff that she might summon defendant's brother if she wished.


An elderly woman, named Mary CHARTERS, was charged with stealing some coal, the property of Robert BURROWES, Esq., J.P., D.L., Stradone House. A servant of Mr. BURROWES's proved the case and stated that in consequence of a great quantity of coal having been stolen, he was placed to watch, in order to detect the robber, and found the accused stealing something more than a stone of coal. She had not necessity to do so, as Mr. BURROWES had got a quantity of timber felled, and gives it as firewood to any poor person in the neighbourhood, who applies for it. The accused, after being cautioned, admitted the offence, and handed up a certificate of good character from the Vicar of her parish. She said she was a poor widow, and had one child, and was in great poverty; and that if pardoned, she would leave Stradone, and seek a living elsewhere. She screamed several times, and was loud in her protestations of sorrow for her offence. His Worship at first postponed the case in consequence of their being no other magistrate present, but when Captain CARDEN came into Court, the case was again proceed with, and at its termination the Chairman pointed out to the prisoner the position in which she had placed herself by plundering Mr. BURROWES. She had no excuse for the crime, as she could have had firewood from MR. BURROWES if she applied for it. But for her previous good character, and the fact that her child was depending on her, she would be punished more severely. But the Court would place only a light punishment under these circumstances--namely, imprisonment for one week; and he advised her to leave Stradone at the expiration of her imprisonment.


James QUINN and Thomas HAGHAN, two pedlars, appeared to answer the complaint of Miss Susan HEMINGS for having obtained several articles of wearing apparel from her unlawfully and under false pretences.

Mr. M'MILLAN, of Wesley-street, applied to have the case postponed, as Miss HEMINGS was unable to attend.

Mr. John ARMSTRONG, who appeared for defendants, objected to have the case postponed unless sufficient reasons were assigned for complainant's non-attendance.

His Worship said that if Miss HEMINGS were ill, or wished to summon a necessary witness who could not appear that day, and that an affidavit to that effect were made, he would postpone the case; otherwise he could not do so.

Mr. M'MILLAN said he could give no evidence to that effect, but would apply for a summons against defendants for dealing as pedlars without a license.

Mr. ARMSTRONG said that was merely a "fishing inquiry," to see if his clients had a license. The case against them should be first disposed of.

His Worship said he would dismiss the case.

One of the defendants wished to know if they could obtain their costs, as they had been kept several days in town.

His Worship said he could do nothing regarding that, as there was no case before him.

Mr. M'MILLAN wish to know if he could get an immediate summons against the defendants for dealing without a license, and handed up a copy of Loftus's "Inland Revenue Almanac," pointing out the licenses to be paid by chapment, pedlars, &c.;

His Worship said any person might call upon a pedlar to show his license, when dealing with him. He was willing to grant a summons, and, if Mr. M'MILLAN would swear that he apprehended the parties would eave town and evade the service of the summons, he would grant a warrant against them.

MR. M'MILLAN declined to do so, and his Worship consented to grant a summons.


An able-looking, but wretchedly-clad man was brought up in custody of Sub-Constable WALLACE who arrested him in this town on suspicion of being a deserter from the army.

Sub-Inspector NAPIER applied to have the prisoner remanded, as he had sent off communications relative to him, to which no answer had yet arrived.

The Governor of the Gaol made a similar application and stated that the prisoner was branded on the left side with the letter 'D'. Over the brand there was a very ingeniously-executed star, evidently placed there for the purpose of concealing the brand, and it was with difficulty the letter 'D' could be seen. He had also a number of stars and other figures on his arms, apparently executed at the same time as the star on his side.

Sub-Inspector NAPIER said the prisoner had given references in Limerick and Dublin, where he alleged he had been working.

The Chairman said the prisoner, when brought before him after his arrest, had refused to give any satisfactory account of himself.

The prisoner said "it was too bad to want a man to say he was a deserter when he wasn't, sir;" and protested against the charge; but seeing that protestations were of no avail, he admitted that he was a deserter from the 88th Regiment; is a native of Limerick; his name is Michael KELLY, and not James KELLY, as he had at first stated; he enlisted in 1854; his regimental No. was 1046; he deserted, when his regiment was at Colchester, about January, 1857; was in the Workhouse hospital in Dublin for some time since his desertion.

Sub-Constable WALLACE said he saw in the "Hue and Cry" the description of a deserter from the 84th exactly suiting the prisoner, and told him of it in the barrack; the prisoner asked where did the man desert from, and then without waiting for a reply, asked "was it from Pembroke?" it was from Pembroke the man had deserted; and it was likely the description was that of the prisoner.

The prisoner's admissions having been taken down, he was remanded until an escort arrive for him from his regiment.


Mary Anne BOYLAN, charged with having been drunk and disorderly in the public street, was, in consequence of her comparatively good behaviour for some time past, allowed to escape with a caution.

The Court then rose.


DARING OUTRAGE--On the night of Friday last, about half past eight o'clock, an outrage of rather a singular and serious nature, but happily unattended with any fatal consequences, was perpetrated at the residence of Dr. HAMMERTON, at Antlestown, some miles from Navan. The circumstances are these:--The servant man, Edward CAMPBELL, was engaged cleaning knives at a window on the ground floor, in the rere of the house, when a shot was fired through the window, which broke nine or ten panes of glass. A great number of grains of shot must have been discharged, as there are thirteen or fourteen holes observable in the panes.--The man had a narrow, and indeed a providential escape, not a single grain having touched him.--On Saturday CAMPBELL swore informations in the Navan Court house, before Thomas ROTHWELL, Esq., J.P. A girl who lives a short distance from Dr. HAMMERTON's also made information at the same time, deposing that she saw two men pass, shortly after the shot was fired, who came from the direction of that gentleman's house. She was looking out of her window at the time they passed, but is unable to describe their appearance. No motive can at present can be ascribed for this singular occurrence, except wantonness, as Dr. HAMMERTON is highly respected by all classes in the neighbourhood.

ACCIDENT AT BALLINAGH--On Tuesday, the 12th inst., as a car boy named REILLY from Arvagh, was returning from Cavan with a woman of same name and place, where she had been seeing her husband, who is confined in Cavan Gaol for debts, and passing through Ballinagh at a rapid pace when through carelessness, the side board struck with great violence against the parapet wall of the Bridge of the town, knocking the woman off her seat, precipitating her over the wall; she fell about 30 feet into the bed of the river, and dreadfully mangled, and her spine seriously injured. If it had not been for some men who were at the mills, convenient to the scene of the occurrence and hearing the unfortunate woman cry for help, ran to her assistance, she would have undoubtedly lost her life. It is believed the car boy was drunk, for he drove on, not missing his passenger for some time. After returning, he insisted that she, in that dreadful state,should get on the car again. He did not go far, however, until he was compelled to leave her in a house until the following morning, when she was conveyed home in a cart, and has since been dangerously ill, and not expected to survive.--Correspondent.


On Tuesday, the Grand Jury were sworn in, with the usual formalities, before the High Sheriff, and immediately afterwards proceeded to dispose of the fiscal business, which was got through with creditable rapidity. On Wednesday evening the Grand Jury proceeded to hear the claims for compensation for


Upper Clonkee William Armitage MOORE, Esq., claimed compensation to the amount of £1 14s, for malicious to injury done to a mowing machine, his property.

Mr. William JOHNSTON deposed that he had sworn informations before a magistrate; several parts of the machine were injured; he believed the injury to have been malicious; the machine lay about 50 yards outside the paling next the house; on the morning of the 28th he was going down to the garden, and saw the machine broken; there were stones near hand as if they were used in battering it; the stones seemed to have been brought there for the purpose; the machine was left in good order the night before; the machine was only in use a few days.

Foreman--Do you consider the injury was malicious?

I do, sir; I am sure it was.

Hon. S. R. MAXWELL--Had the machine lately been brought down?

It was brought down about a week before.

Mr. William JOHNSTON, Cavan, said that before the question was put by the foreman, he wished to make one observation. He was one of the ratepayers at (illegible) and they were all of opinion that the injury was done maliciously; but the evidence did not state what the injury was; he though there ought to be compensation granted if it were legal to do so, but it ought to be levied off the locality.


Mr. Nathaniel GRIFFITH claimed compensation to the amount of £190 16s 1d for the alleged malicious burning of a large quantity of hay and straw, his property, at Coreloghan, on the night of the 4th, or morning of the 5th of October last. The claim was made before the Baronial Sessions at Bailieborough, when the decision was "not considered malicious."

Mr. John ARMSTRONG appeared for the claimant, and Mr. Hugh SWANZY and Mr. Samuel KNIPE appeared contra.

Mr. ARMSTRONG, in support of the application, said however they might differ as to the facts, and whatever might be the result of the inquiry there was one thing that would be conclusive--Namely, that Mr. GRIFFITH believed the injury to have been maliciously perpetrated against him....

Mr. GRIFFITH sworn--I live at Knappa; I have lived there about five years; the tenants who were there before me were the DERMOTTs; they were removed by ejectment, and I succeeded them; when I went on the lands I found Charles and James REILLY living there; I intimated my intention of removing them; in consequence of that there was an unkind feeling towards me. Charles REILLY held about a rood of land, and James REILLY about an acre; they were brothers; I recollect afterwards meeting Charles REILLY in Ballybay; he made use of threats there; that nearly twelve months after I went to Knappa.

To Mr. TATLOW--I put the Reilly's out of possession through my landlord, Mr. SINGLETON........

John Irwin deposed that he was examined at the presentment sessions; he lived under Mr. GRIFFITH and recollected the night of the burning; there was a "sayin'" about a bad feeling towards Mr. Griffith....

Constable SPEARS--Was stationed about 5 miles from MR. GRIFFITH's; attended the fire with his party; made enquiries but could get no clue or information as to the burning; no person could tell him anything...

...Mr. KNIPE and Mr. SWANSEY stated that they had more witnesses; but several members of the Grand Jury having intimated that they required no further evidence except as to the facts,Messrs. SWANSY and KNIPE closed their case, and the Foreman put the question when there appeared eight votes for considering the burning malicious and twelve for believing as it to be accidental.

The application was therefore refused.

There were three other cases of malicious injuries of a trifling nature, in which there was no opposition to the claimants....The business of the Grand Jury was concluded about two o'clock on Thursday.


The Honorable Baron HUGHES entered the Crown Court at 8 o'clock on Thursday, accompanied by M. O'Reilly DEASE, Esq., HIgh Sheriff of the County, and Colonel, the Hon. Hugh ANNESLEY, M.P.

Mr. P. CAFFREY read her Majesty's writ of Commission.

H. J. RAE, Esq., Clerk of the Crown, then called over the Grand Jury Panel, and the following gentlemen were sworn:--

Lieutenant-Colonel the Hon. Hugh ANNESLEY, M. P., foreman; Robert BURROWES, J.P., D.L.; Hon. Somerset R. MAXWELL, J.P.; Anthony O'REILLY, J.P.; Hon. Richard MAXWELL, J.P.; Lieutenant -Colonel Henry T CLEMENTS, J.P.; James Arthur DEANE, J.P.; John Edward VERNON, J.P.; Edward Hobert NUGENT; David Fielding JONES, J.P.;James FAY, Captain Michael PHILLIPS, J.P.; James M'FADEN; Wm. TATLOW, J.P.; George Henry L'ESTRANGE, J.P.; Captain James STORY, J.P.; William Armitage MOORE, J.P.; Charles MORTIMER; Captain John JOHNSTON, J.P.; James M'LENIHAN, and John ROGERS, J.P.

Baron HUGHES--Colonel ANNESLEY, and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the County of Cavan (usual greetings)....There are, at the moment, thirteen patients confined in your prison, and I have got a certificate from the Medical Officer of the prison that two of these patients are on the point of death and that they are necessarily confined in a part of the prison hurtful to their mental and bodily health. It must be most distressing to you, as it is to me, to Hear that statement in reference to parties who have committed no crime and I did hope that you would have made some arrangement either by addition to the prison, or by employing persons so as to afford them relief; but nothing appears to have been done in that respect.....I trust these observations will induce something of this kind to be done until some arrangement shall be made, or until some other district lunatic asylum shall be opened to the people of the County of Cavan. There are a few bills, not of a very aggravated character to be sent up to you, and I know that to the gentlemen whom I now address it is merely necessary to say that you will find those bills only on such evidence as if uncontradicted or unexplained would justify a petty jury in bringing in a conviction.

The Grand Jury then retired.

Mr. RAE then challenged objections to the presentments in the various baronies, but no objection was made.

His Lordship having fiated the presentments, a petty jury was sworn, and the Court proceeded to hear the


Hugh M'BRIEN was indicted for having, on the 11th of November, stolen two pigs, the property of Michael BRADY. The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

The case was reported in a former number of the OBSERVER, at the time the informations were taken at the Petty Sessions Court, Cavan. The case was then sent for trial to the Quarter Sessions, but afterwards sent to the (illegible) in consequence of John LORD, a Dublin pig-jobber, who purchased the pigs from the prisoner at the November fair of this town, not attending. BRADY, from whom the pigs were stolen, Lord, who purchased them, and FITZGERALD, the policeman who arrested the prisoner in Dundalk, on the 13th November, having been submitted, his Lordship charged the jury, who at once returned a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve months, with hard labour, and the money found on his person when arrested to be given to BRADY.

George ARGUE, Joseph ROUNTREE, Henry ARGUE, Joseph BEATTY, Christopher ARGUE, and John PATTERSON were indicted for taking part in an illegal procession near Ballyhaise; on the 13th July 1860, and with bearing banners and emblems, and playing music calculated and tending to cause offence to others of her Majesty's subjects. [The case was fully reported in the Observer at its first hearing, and the prisoners have been since out on bail.] The prisoners pleaded guilty.

MR. HENDERSON, who with MR. JOHNSTON, conducted the case on the part of the Crown, said that as the prisoners had pleaded guilty he intended not to press the case against them. In common with every one anxious for the peace and well-being of society, he deplored seeing so many respectable men standing in such a position and pleading guilty to a breach of the statute law of their country. Some years ago a similar case to the present had occurred, and the accused, when placed on their trial, had, like those now before the Court, offered the only atonement in their power for the offence--namely, by pleading guilty. If there had been any circumstances of a premeditated nature in the present case, he should feel it his duty to abstain from pursuing the course now taken by him; but having consulted with the Crown Solicitor and those interested in the peace and well-being of the county, he learned that if it were possible for an offence of the kind to be excusable, this case was so....He would merely ask that they enter into their own recognizances to appear when called upon; and he trusted the present case would be a warning to them, and that there would be no necessity ever to call upon them to receive the sentence of the Court....After again cautioning the prisoners, his lordship ordered them to be discharged, on entering into their own (illegible).....

The Court shortly afterwards adjourned, and on yestermorning...

Patrick FINNEGAN was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, and with seeking to defraud the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, by making an affidavit before John Harvey ADAMS, Esq., J.P., to a document purporting to be a consent for the discharge of one Foster BLACK, an insolvent, then in the Marshalsca, Dublin, and to be signed by one William M'Kinlyj SOMMERVILLE. The object was to defeat the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, and was a well-conceived and boldly executed plot on the part of Foster BLACK, Sylvester CAMPAIGNE, and the prisoner. When BLACK appeared before the Insolvency Court in Dublin, suspicion was excited and a prosecution instituted by the Attorney-General against BLACK and CAMPAIGNE, who have been sentenced and are now in prison for the offence, FINEGAN being sent for trial to Cavan. The trials of BLACK and CAMPAIGNE, which involve the particulars of the case against FINEGAN, were reported in the OBSERVER at the time. Witnesses having been examined including the Chief Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court, Dublin, Mr. M'CAFFREY, Deputy Clerk of the Peace for this county, and Mr. J. A. ADAMS, his lordship charged, and the prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Patrick REILLY was indicted for having stolen a heifer, the property of Sarah CLARKE. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. He was convicted, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Mary REILLY was indicted for having stolen eight looking glasses, value two shillings and four pence, the property of Peter GARTIAN, of Cootehill. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The prisoner said her passage money to America was paid, but his Lordship informed her that she should postpone her emigration for 12 months.

Rose Anne CLEMENTS, charged with stealing a parcel out of the shop of Richard CLARKE, Bailieborough, pleaded guilty, and also to a previous robbery from Mr. HARTLEY, of Cavan, in 1856, when she was sentenced to four years' penal servitude.--His Lordship sentenced her to a similar term.

Bridget CARDLEN was sentenced to four years' penal servitude for having in her possession a blanket, the property of Patrick M'FADIN, knowing it to have been stolen.

Five young men were indicted for having, at Swanlinbar, on the 27th November, 1860, with other evil-disposed persons, riotously assembled and caused a riot and affray. The prisoners pleaded not guilty. They were defended by Mr. IRWIN.

The riot took place on the evening of the 27th November last--the fair day of Swanlinbar, and the party with the prisoners was an extremely large one. The riot was of the class unfortunately but too common at our fairs, although, by the timely interference of the police, more serious results were prevented.

Head-Constable HARRISON (late of Cootehill), the Sub-Inspector of the district, and some of the police were examined for the prosecution, and cross-examined by Mr. IRWIN.....The jury, after an extremely lengthened deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty against all the prisoners.

His Lordship, addressing the prisoners, commented strongly upon the nature of the offence of which they had been clearly convicted, and its effects upon society, and sentenced one of the prisoners (Thomas M'HUGH, who appeared to have been the ringleader) to six months imprisonment, another (M'GOWAN) to three months imprisonment, and the others to one month's imprisonment each, with hard labour.

This concluded the criminal business.

At the termination of the Crown cases, three appeals were tried by his Lordship. For the first--HORAN v. REILLY,rising out of a demise of certain lands near Cootehill--we have not space, Mr. HORAN (for whom Mr. DOWSE appeared) was defeated. Mr. HAMILTON instructed by Mr. DUDGEON, appeared for Mr. REILLY. We can only give an abstract of the two other appeals, which were:

Thomas HALL, appellant; Bernard MARRON, respondent,

This was an appeal from the decision of the Chairman at last Bailieborough Quarter sessions. Appellant is a grocer and publican, residing and carrying on business in Bailieborough. Respondent is a cattle dealer and (illegible) in appellant, on the day after the last November fair of Ballyduff. He got that day £20 from his partner....In getting change from appellant on the same evening he gave him, as alleged, the £10, £5, and five £1 notes. In getting change from the appellant on the same evening, he give him, as he alleged, the £10 in mistake for a £1 note, and received only 20s. change. He discovered his loss or mistake on the same evening, and afterwards brought an action against appellant, at the Quarter Sessions, when he obtained a decree. Evidence having been fully gone into, his Lordship reversed the decision of Quarter Sessions.

Mr. DOWSE, instructed by MR. MAHAFFY, appeared for appellant. For respondent--Mr. CARSON; attorney--Mr. Jas. ARMSTRONG.

The Midland Great Western Railway Company, appellants; -- BEATTY, respondent.

This appeal was brought from a decision at last Cavan Quarter Sessions. The respondent had obtained a decree against appellants for £40 less and damage sustained by their not fulfilling their contract regarding certain accommodation works agreed to be executed by them in lieu of land surrendered to them by respondent for the purposes of their line. They agreed to give him a bridge with 10 feet of a clear headway under the lane, and they gave him one with a headway of only 9 feet 2 inches from the roadway under the bridge, a surface sunk by themselves, and not from the general surface of the land, whereby respondent has suffered considerable loss and injury. His Lordship affirmed the decree, with costs, reserving a point urged by MR. DOWSE; attorney--Mr. E. M'GAURAN.

For respondent--Mr. BROOKE, Q.C.; attorneys--Messrs. James and John ARMSTRONG.

This case closed about six o'clock, when his Lordship rose. He leaves town this morning.


Mr. Justice BALL opened the Record Court on yesterday morning. The principal case for hearing was an appeal brought by Mr. Arthur ELLIS, the well-known extensive merchant of Cavan, from a decision of the Chairman at last Quarter Sessions--the case in that court being brought by him against the Midand Great Western Railway Company for alleged over-charges by them for the conveyance of butter and other goods by their line of railway from Cavan to Dublin...The entire case hinged upon--first, the right of the Company to make certain charges per ton for the conveyance of goods; and, secondly, whether Mr. WALLACE, the forwarding agent, was the absolute or limited agent of the company at the period in which the over-charges were alleged to have been made--the former being contended on the part of Mr. ELLIS, and the latter on the part of the Railway Company. At the Quarter Sessions the Chairman decided against Mr. ELLIS...Mr. ELLIS appealed from this decision. The case occupied a considerable time, and the decision of the Chairman was reversed, with costs--Mr. ELLIS recovering the full amount claimed by him.

The Court was occupied until a late hour last night with the case of WARREN v. KING, which comes on again today.

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.