The Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan
January 5, 1861

The "Observer" is devoted to the Political, Agricultural, and Commercial advancement of the country, and whilst it advocates with fidelity sound Constitutional principles, it manifests a spirit of Christian tolerance as regards those to whose principles it is politically and religiously opposed. It devotes a considerable portion of its space to Literary and Scientific subjects, at the same time supplying the fullest Local and General Information.



The Quarter Sessions for this division of the county commenced on Monday, before P. M. MURPHY, Esq., Q. C., Chairman of the County.

On the Bench with his Worship were the following magistrates: Robt BURROWES, Esq., D. L., Captain CUMMING, Captain CARDEN, David F. JONES, Theophilus THOMPSON, William BABINGTON, Robert ERSKINE, J. STORY, Wm. Murray HICKSON, R.M., Esqrs. &c.;


Thomas HARTLEY, of Countenan, Foreman; Edward KENNEDY of Cavan; James GILROY, of Turin; Matthew LOUGH, of Cavan; Philip SMITH of Castlecosby; James HARTLEY, of Cavan; John GANNON, of Cavan; Francis Edward HUDLESTON, of Gortinadrass; Henry DOUGLAS, of Cavan, George GRAHAM, of Clonervy; James MORROW, of Crossrule; JOhn PRUNTY, of Ballyhaise; Alexander KETTYLE, of Cavan; John MOORE, of Lisdarran; James HOPKINS, of Cavan; John DOGHERTY, of Derryland; and Robert BUCHANAN, of Corrickeany, Esqrs.

The bills having been handed to them, the Grand Jury retired to consider their findings, and the Court proceeded to hear the insolvent cases, after which the following appeal (the only one heard) was proceeded with:--

John BRADY, appellant, Captain CUMMING, J.P., respondent

Messrs KNIPE and M'GAURAN appeared for the appellant, and Mr. John ARMSTRONG for the respondent.

The facts of this case were as follows:--The appellant kept a public-house in Ballyjamesduff, and on the evening of the 12th of August, the fair day of that town, some parties who were drinking in the house, commenced to quarrel, upon which appellant ejected them from his house. They continued the quarrel in the street, and Mr. WEIR, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who lives opposite appellant's house, on hearing the noise ran out, and rushing to amongst the crowd collected near the appellant's door, caught two men who were fighting. Mr. WEIR was unarmed, and unaccompanied by any of the constabulary. The two rioters struggled violently with him, and some of the crowd also struck him on the head and back. HE did not let go his grip, however, and both him and the two men fell to the ground and struggled there for some short time, when one of the ruffians got Mr. WEIR's hand in his mouth, and bit him--Mr. WEIR was lying on his back at the time. It was about five or six o'clock in the evening, and the occurrence took place on side appellants' door. MR. WEIR alleged that he saw appellant standing within a short distance of him, and the agony he was enduring in consequence of the ruffian having his hand in his mouth, being unbearable, he screamed out "BRADY, BRADY, for God's sake help me!" Instead of doing so, Brady ran into the house, and he was obliged to let one of the rioters go, but succeeded in bringing the other to the police barrack. The two men were afterwards paneled at the Ballyjamesduff PEttey Session, when the order of the magistrate was confirmed--namely six month's imprisonment to one, and three months' imprisonment to the other. When the publicans of the district were applying for renewals of their spirit licenses, or certificates, lately, the magistrates at the Ballyjamesduff Petty Session refused to grant appellant a certificate in consequence of his refusing to ass MR. WEIR, on the 12th of August. The respondent, Captain CUMMING, was chairman on the occasion, as it was from this decision the present appeal was made. For the appeal it was contended by Mr. KNIPE that the appellant had done his duty in putting the rioters out of his house, and that he was not bound to rush out and assist MR. WEIR, leaving his property to the mercy of other rioters; that Mr. WEIR should have had his constables with him; and he also alleged that appellant did not hear Mr. WEIR call to him for assistance. Mr. ARMSTRONG contended, on the other hand, that publicans were bound, under a penalty of ?10, to assist police constables and other officers of justice. Mr WEIR having been examined by Mr.ARMSTRONG; and cross-examined by Mr. M'GAURAN.

The Chairman asked Mr. ARMSTRONG where he found that publicans were obliged to assist the police?

Mr. ARMSTRONG said he had been only retained that morning, and could not point out the particular section of the act, but if the case were allowed to stand over until next morning he would be able to do so.

Messrs. M'GAURAN and KNIPE objected.

The Chairman inquired if there was any other charge against appellant.

Mr. WEIR said not; his general character, and that of his house, was good.

Some discussing having taken place.

The Court ruled that the charge was not sufficient to deprive appellant of his license, as the alleged offence had no connection with the management of his house or his personal character--Mr. WEIR had acted very gallantly, though indiscreetly, and perhaps appellant had behaved unproperly; but that was not the question. The decision of the magistrates should, therefore, be reversed.

There were seven applications for spirit licenses--each of which was granted. In the case of Patrick M'BRIDE, Main street, Cavan, Mr. BABINGTON said that himself and the other magistrates at Petty Session in October had refused to grant him a certificate on the ground that himself and his wife were of intemperate habits, but hi had since made inquiry, and found that M'BRIDE and his wife had become temperate. The certificate was already signed by one magistrate, but he (MR. B.) told M'BRIDE that he would not sign it unless in Court, that he might publicly state his reasons for doing so.

The Chairman and Mr. BABINGTON had acted very properly.

Mr. THOMPSON also stated that M'BRIDE and his wife had given up drinking. Mr. BABINGTON then signed the certificate, and the application was granted.

The Grand Jury returned with their findings. Several bills had been ignored. A case of conning(?) was sent for trial to Enniskillen Assizes, and the witnesses rebound to prosecute. In a case of pig stealing, an important witness, John LORD of Dublin did not appear the the case was sent to the assizes. In another case it appeared that the accused had left the country; and Mr. KNIPE appeared on behalf of his sur(illegible)...did so with the (illegible) of the prosecutor, and without their knowledge; but his Worship entered the recognizance subject to the production of the accused at next Quarter Session.

The following were the criminal cases heard:--

Michael TEEVAN pleaded guilty to a charge of carrying a gun in a (illegible).

Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG, the Crown Solicitor, said he had made inquiry into the case, and found that the prisoner bore an excellent character. He lived near the boundary of the proclaimed district, and had, perhaps, inadvertently, carried the gun into it. He would not, therefore, press for punishment.

Mr. THOMPSON, J.P., also gave the prisoner a good character.

The chairman pointed out to the the prisoner the advantage of good character, and ordered him to be discharged.

Mary CONNOLLY was charged with stealing 4 pieces of woollen plaid, 2 pieces of Gingham, 2 pieces of grey lace, one piece of union calico, 2 pieces of printed (illegible) and a quantity of worsted, the property of Anna Maria MERVYN; 2 boots, the property of Robert H. MERVYN; and 1 box, 1 book, 1 hair brush, and 1 valentine the property of John FEGAN. A second count charged her with having them in her possession, knowing them to be stolen.

The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty to both counts.

Miss Anna Maria MERVYN identified the goods stolen from her. The prisoner had been in her father's employment as a servant and from some suspicions she entertained, she searched the prisoner's box, where she found the goods.

The prisoner put several questions to Miss MERVYN, all of which were satisfactorily answered.

Mr. Robert Henry MERVYN, brother to the last witness, identified the boots as his property. They were odd ones--"fives" and "sevens"--and the corresponding ones were in his shop.

Mr. John FEGAN, printer and stationer, identified the articles stolen from him. Some of the he might have sold previously; others he was sure he did not--The prisoner had been servant to his father, and when altering his establishment some time since, a portion of his stock, had been removed to his father's house--The prisoner had access to the room in which goods of the description stolen were kept.

Sub-constable JOYCE proved to arresting the prisoner on the 24th December.

The prisoner said she had found the boots in Mr. MERVYN's yard, and thought they were left there by some country people. She persisted that she had purchased the goods claimed by Miss MERVYN, but would not tell where. She said the goods claimed by Mr. FEGAN had been given to her by a servant girl of his fathers', since gone to America.

No character was produced of the prisoner.

His Worship having charged the jury, they returned a verdict of guilty, without leaving the box.

The prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

Prisoner--Thank your Worship. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm much obliged to you all (laughter).

Michael FITZPATRICK, Thomas GILLIAN, Thomas REILLY, Terrence REILLY, and Patrick CHARTERS, were charged with having at Ballinagh, on the 21st of December, assaulted Constable William STEELE, Sub-Constables, JOhn SMITH, Robert RANSON, and William RUTHERFORD, in the execution of their duty; with having, at same time and place, with others, riotously assembled and created a riot and affray, and with having, at same time and place, assaulted Sub-Constable William RUTHERFORD, so as to do him grievous bodily harm. There were six counts in the indictment.

The prisoners, who are all young men, pleaded not guilty.

They were defended by Messrs. M'GAURAN and KNIPE.

The Crown Solicitor prosecuted.

It appeared from the evidence that on the night of the 21st December there were two parties of young men "sliding" on the street of Ballinagh. One party belonged to the "town" and the other to the "country". The prisoners belong to the latter. About eleven o'clock at night one of the two party, either accidentally, or intentionally, knocked against and upset one of the other party, and some of those present laughed at the latter. Angry words succeeded, and Constable STEELE and his men, fearing that the peace of the town would be disturbed, recommended the country party to go home. They were unwilling to do so, but the police succeeded in getting them near the end of the two, opposite the Court-house. FITZPATRICK< who was the most violent, brandished a stick about his head, and said he would have revenge on the town party--that he 'would clear the town,', 'box any peeler in the town', &c. Constable Steele took the stick from him, and he insisted on having it back, but the constable offered to leave it in any house he wished, and that he could have it next day. FITZPATRICK was not satisfied with this and said that if he "couldn't get a stick, he could get a stone." He then went to a dead wall at the side of the road, took a stone and flung it at the Constable, but it struck Sub-constable RUTHERFORD on the head--the blood gushing out on STEELE, who was near him. RUTHERFORD has been suffering since from the effects of the blow. GALLIGAN was also extremely violent. Finally, the attack by the whole party was made on the police, and regular volleys of stones were thrown at them.-- The police were unarmed; STEELE directed them to retreat to the barrack. They did so and returned with fixed bayonets. Nothwithstanding this, they rioters continued, and attacked them even when the bayonets of the police were touching their breasts. At length the police succeeded in capturing the prisoners, but the rest of the rioters escaped. After the capture of the prisoners no stones were thrown. FITZPATRICK appeared to have been the leader of the rioters in connection with GALLIGAN, but the other prisoners, although taking part in the affray, were not so violent. Although the prisoners appeared to have taken some drink, there were none of them drunk at the time.

The witnesses were cross-examined for the defence, but nothing material was elicited.

Dr. REILLY was examined as to the nature of the wound sustained by RUTHERFORD. He said the wound had penetrated to the skull--the membranes being cut through; and he first feared that inflammation of the brain would sent in, and refused to give a certificate that RUTHERFORD was out of danger. He was questioned at some length by the Chairman as to the meaning of the terms "grievous bodily injury;" and admitted that if inflammation of the brain had not se in, RUTHERFORD would be scarcely said to have sustained such injury.

Mr. E. M'GAURAN ably addressed the jury for the defence, and examined Laurence REILLY, father of the prisoners of that name, and also witnesses as to character.

The Crown Solicitor re-examined Constable STEELE, who proved that CHARTERS had been convicted at one time of a waylay and assault on a man name Bartly SHERIDAN.

The Chairman in an able and lengthened charge stipulated the evidence, pointing out the law bearing on the case, and told the jury that on Dr. REILLY's evidence, they should leave out the count for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Sub-constable RUTHERFORD.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty against all the prisoners, but expressed it as their opinion that Thomas REILLY, Terence REILLY, and Patrick CHARTERS, were not so much in fault as FITZPATRICK and GALLIGAN.

The Chairman considered the verdict a very proper (illegible) and sentenced FITZPATRICK to be imprisoned for twelve months, with hard labour; GALLIGAN for nine months; and the others for four months each. Both in his charge to the jury and when passing sentence on the prisoners, his Worship paid a high compliment to the police for the excellent manner in which acted before and after the affray.

There were a couple of cases of rescue, in which the parties consented to settle their differences without the intervention of the Court, and as they were of a trifling nature, the Crown Solicitor declined to prosecute. In another of the same nature, the accused plead guilty, and was discharged.

Eleanor M'GOVERN was indicted for having, on the 27th December, at Ballyconnell, stolen ten 1? notes, the monies of Hugh REYNOLDS, she being his hired servant. The prisoner was undefended and pleaded not guilty.

Rose Anna REYNOLDS examined by Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG--Is wife to Hugh REYNOLDS; lives in Ballyconnell; knows the prisoner; she was my servant; on the 27th of December I sent her to Mr. KANE's to get (illegible) large note for ten single ones; she came back in a few moments, and said Mr. KANE was at dinner; I told her to go elsewhere, and she went out again; I did not see her after that until about eleven or twelve o'clock that night, when she was in the custody of the police; my husband had given information to the police.

Constable VIRTUE examined--Received information that the prisoner had absconded from Ballyconnell on the 27th December; found her that night in the house of a man named Peter SMITH, at a place called Cullion, almost four miles from Ballyconnell; it was about ten o'clock when I found her; when I went into SMITH's house the prisoner reached out her hand with the notes and said "here", as if she knew what I wanted; Hugh REYNOLDS was with me at the time; I then took her into custody.

The prisoner asked no questions of either of the witnesses.

The Chairman asked the Constable if he knew what character the prisoner bore?

Constable VIRTUE said he he knew the prisoner about three years; and she bore an excellent character, and said her family also were of good character.

Mrs. REYNOLDS, in reply to the Court, said the prisoner had been in her employment since about the 12th of November.

The Chairman briefly recapitulated the evidence, and said that it was evident the prisoner had been honest up to the time she came back with the notes, and said that Mr. KANE was at dinner. Being sent a second time with the notes, temptation, unfortunately, entered her heart, and she who a moment before been honest , lost the spirit of honesty. The question for the jury to decide was--did the prisoner take the notes with the guilty intention of stealing them.

The jury after a short deliberation, found the prisoner not guilty--they did not think she took the notes with the intention of stealing them.

The Chairman said he should take their verdict, and then, in a feeling manner, pointed out to the prisoner the position in which she would have been placed but for the merciful view taken of her case by the jury, and advised her not to again allow temptation to overcome her, but to maintain the same character for honesty which she had borne previous to the 27th of December.

The prisoner was then discharged, and the criminal business having terminated, his Worship informed the jury that they were discharged from further attendance, except such of them as were summoned for civil cases. He had great pleasure in wishing them a "happy new year."

The jury thanked his Worship and the Court adjourned to the following morning.


His Worship entered Court this morning about ten o’clock, and the undefended civil bills were proceeded with. Several magistrates occupied seats on the bench with his worship. At the termination of the undefended civil bills, the Court proceeded to hear the


Several undefended cases were heard and one or two were postponed. The following case created considerable sensation in court:--


The ejectment stated "that whereas Patrick LEE, one of the defendants, lately held all that and those that part of the lands of Killygorm, and the house and buildings thereon, as now in the defendants’ possession, with the appurtenances, situated in the parish of Kildallon, and in the barony of Tullyhunco, and in the division of Cavan, as tenant to the plaintiff, at the yearly rent of £24 7s. 6d, which tenancy determined on the 1st day of November 1860, last past, by means of a notice to quit having been duly served upon said defendant, Patrick LEE, and further stated that possession was duly demanded, and refused. The present case was, therefore, brought to obtain possession of the land.

Messrs. James and John ARMSTRONG appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. KNIPE for the defence.

Service of the notice to quit, ejectment, and demand for possession having been proved,

Mr. KNIPE said that in point of law, he was afraid his defence was not sufficient, but he was sure that if Mr. SAUNDERSON obtained a decree he would pause before he executed it. LEE had been a good and improving tenant, and had laid out considerable sums of money upon his farm. It appeared that some time after the election in 1855, when MR. HUGHES stood for this county, LEE’s rent was raised, and like a good tenant, he consented to pay an increased rent. MR.SAUNDERSON shortly afterwards called upon LEE, and told him that he would never serve him with a notice to quit so long as he lived. On the faith of this promise LEE laid out a considerable sum of money in improvements. He actually made the improvements Mr. SAUNDERSON himself pointed out. He built a wall and a range of houses, made sewers, and other improvements—being as certain of his farm, on the strength of Mr. SAUNDERSON’s word, as if he had the lease in his pocket. Yet notwithstanding all this, he was served with a notice to quit, and it was now sought to turn him out. LEE had always paid the rent to the hour, and was willing to pay it up to May next, if required. Mr. SAUNDERSON’s promise was not sufficiently plain to be binding in point of law; but LEE was ready to depose to the promise. Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON was in court, but he (Mr. K.) supposed the circumstances had escaped his memory, but, if brought to his recollection, he was sure he would not press the case. Mr. KNIPE then examined

Patrick LEE, the defendant, who deposed that he has resided for about thirty years on the property now held by Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON; MR. SAUNDERSON had the property valued in June, 1854; after the election of 1855 witness’s rent was raised to 24£ 7s. 6d, which he has since paid; a short time afterwards Mr. SAUNDERSON came to him, and asked him was he satisfied to pay the increased rent; he said that he could not grumble at the rent, as the times were good; Mr. SAUNDERSON said"well, that’s an honest answer; I like to give a man his due;" Mr. SAUNDERSON also said that some of his agents had taken the liberty of reducing the rents in consequence of getting bribes; and he added that he "would never prove a bigot on account of the election;" and he then said, "I will never turn you out as long as I live, or as long as you pay the valuation;" Mr. SAUNDERSON came to witness last Holantide, and point out improvements he should make in his farm yard and walls; all of which witness has since made; on that occasion Mr. SAUNDERSON said to witness, slapping him on the back, "you are an improving tenant, and a model on my property;" witness has built an office, and laid out large sums in improving his farm. Chairman—If we can be sure of this, MR. SAUNDERSON will not surely persevere in this action. I can’t believe any man would do so after such a promise.

Mr. James ARMSTRONG—Well, your Worship, the Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON is in court, and we will hear what he says.

The Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON then stood up, and stated that he never had any such conversation with plaintiff as he had stated. He had never made any promise not to put him out, or to keep him on the property as long as he lived. He had never spoken about those in his employment taking bribes, and never heard that any of them had done so. He was sure that no respectable person in his employment would do so. It was extremely painful to him to have to stand up in a crowded court, and make such statements; but he felt that he had been badly treated by the people of his district. When he purchased Mr. M’CARTHY’s property in 1854, he found that the greater portion of the tenants were Roman Catholic. He then appointed a Roman Catholic bailiff, and was most anxious to give his Roman Catholic tenants every comfort in his power. His efforts had not been appreciated. Some time since a farm adjoining LEE’s became vacant and his bailiff came to him and said, "Sir, I’m an old man, and if you don’t keep that farm in your own hands, there will be bad work in the country." I told him that was my business. Well, a few nights afterwards an office attached to the house— it was formerly a barrack—was burned down. The windows of the house were broken; and a pump-— very handsome and ingeniously-constructed one—was all disfigured and destroyed. LEE was in charge of that house. I asked him myself to take charge of it; and he consented. I told him he could keep his furniture in it, and sleep in it; and I understand he did so. I was naturally irritated at the outrage, and I used the just authority of a landlord by serving him with a notice to quit.

Mr. ARMSTRONG—Then you never promised not to serve LEE with a notice to quit?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—I solemnly swear I never made such a promise. And furthermore, I wish to observe, your Worship. My bailiff, FLOOD, came to me on one occasion and he said, "Sir, you’re accused of intending not to give leases to any of your Roman Catholic tenants." Now, I had but two opportunities of giving leases, and on both occasions I gave them to Roman Catholics. I told FLOOD then that if he were an honest man, he should have pointed out to any one who made the assertion the evident falsehood of it. I feel, your Worship, that a current is springing up against me in the district, and I feel that I have not deserved it.

Chairman—When did you raise the rents, MR. SAUNDERSON?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—In 1855.

Mr. KNIPE—Did you tell LEE that as long as you lived or he paid the valuation, you would not serve him was a notice to quit?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—I never did.

Mr. KNIPE—I believe LEE has been a very good tenant and made several improvements in his holding?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—I believe he made some improvements

Mr. KNIPE—Didn’t he make the improvements you pointed out?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—I don’t recollect pointing out any particular improvements to him. I’m an active man, your Worship, and as Rector of the parish, I consider it my duty to do all I can for those in it. I often call upon the tenants of other landlords, and if I see any improvements which I think they should make—in their farm-yards or otherwise—I point them out, this way I may have made suggestions to LEE.

Mr. ARMSTRONG—Was LEE in charge of the house that was burned?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON--He had the key.

Mr. KNIPE—Didn’t he build a range of offices and out house?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—I believe he built an outhouse or shed, but I supplied the timber.

Mr. KNIPE—Didn’t he build a wall?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—I don’t know.

Mr. KNIPE—And, Mr. SAUNDERSON, don’t you recollect tapping him on the back, and telling him he was a model to your tenants?

LEE—And shaking hands with me, your reverence.

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—I again swear solemnly that I have no recollection of ever having used such expressions. Your Worship, in that parish I have to discharge the duties of a clergyman and a landlord. That man (LEE) turned out his poor old mother to die in a ditch. We had to build a shed for her; and if she is living now, she is depending upon the bounty of some neighbour. I pitied the poor old woman. I don’t want to disturb her in possession; but I felt it my duty to impress upon that man the enormity of which he had been guilty, but reminded him of the beautiful commandment—"Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God has given thee." For I dreaded that he would bring down evil con- sequences upon himself by his conduct. How could I call such a man a "model"?

Chairman—Perfectly right, sir.

Mr. ARMSTRONG—And I supposed, sir, you don’t want to disturb his mother?

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—No, I do not. The landlords of Cavan—and I’m not speaking of myself alone—are always good to the widows, and I am proud of that trait in their character.

Mr. ARMSTRONG—You hear that, your Worship. He does not with to disturb the mother.

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—And more, your Worship—Before this crowded meeting, I take the opportunity of stating that I am always anxious to do what is fair by my tenants. They asked me for permission to cut turf. I gave it, and LAWLOR, one of my tenants, no sooner got possession that I was thrown out. I said to him, "Now LAWLOR, you’re a fool to yourself, you’re acting unwisely; you may succeed for a while, but you cannot beat the law. Only surrender, and I merely wish to establish my right.." "No, sir," he said, "I’ll never give up to you." He put me to expense and trouble, but I put him out at last, and when he was out, I gave him 20l to enable him to go to America, although he had fought me to the last.

Mr. KNIPE asked if LEE had not surrendered willingly so as to create a new tenancy, and always paid the raised rent.

Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON—Yes, all is paid. He made no objection to pay the rent, for he had a good bargain of it.

Chairman—Oh, you have no case, Mr. KNIPE. Both sides have been fully heard, and every one in court can form their own opinion. Decree for possession given.

Some other ejectment cases were disposed of, and the Court proceeded to hear the adjourned cases.


This was an action for alleged breach of contract on the part of defendants, and the following gentlemen were sworn as a jury: Mr. Thomas HARTLY, Foreman; Messrs. John NAY,; John PRATT; James SMITH; John DOBSON; Thomas TEEVAN; Hugh BRADY; John MOORE; Henry NESBITT; Joseph TEVOR; Patrick FLOOD; and James SIMONS

Previous to the hearing of the case, Mr. M’GAURAN on the part of the defendants, said he had a point to urge which might obviate the necessity of sending the case to the Jury. It was this—By the 8th Victoria, chap. 20, section 9, it was provided that where any railway company did not execute or were not executing accommodation of other works, according to their agreement; or did not keep or maintain such works in proper order, the party aggrieved should bring his complaint before two justices of the peace, and they might make an order compelling the company to fulfill their agreement; or make it competent for the aggrieved party to have the works properly executed or maintained.

Mr. James ARMSTRONG, on the part of plaintiff, contended that it was open to him to select any tribunal , even one of the upper courts. After much discussion,

The Chairman said he would hear the case, and reserve his decision relative to the point raised by Mr. M’GAURAN.

The case was then gone into. The facts are briefly these:-- Plaintiff resides in the vicinity of this town, and at the time of construction of the Cavan branch of the Midland Great Western Railway, aportion of his Land was required and taken for the purposes of the railway. The Company entered into an agreement with him that they were "to Construct a bridge under the railway with ten feet of a headway", and he was to "accept such bridge in lieu of all accommodation works on his land." His complaint was that the company did not give him a gridge of that height, and that in consequence he has suffered considerable inconvenience and loss. By the evidence of Mr. BRADY, engineer, Main street, Cavan, who produced in Court a contoured map of the bridge and plaintiff;s land, the bridge is nine feet two inches from the roadway under it to the guard or top of the arch, but it is only seven feet two inches from the general surface of the land. A mass of cor- respondece relative to complaints made by plaintiff to the company, regarding this breach of agreement was read, and plaintiff and other witnesses deposed to loss mentioned by him in consequence of the bridge not having been constructed according to agreement. No witnesses were examined for the defence, but Mr. M’GAURAN cross examined those produced by plaintiff and addressed the jury on the part of the defendants. The case having closed.

The Chairman charged the jury, recapitulated the evidence, and Told them that according to the evidence of Mr. BRADY, the engineer, defendants had not, in accordance with their agreement built a bridge ten feet high from the general surface of the land. The question for them were—did the defendants break their Contract, and what damages or compensation should they give the plaintiff.

The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £40 damages and costs.

The Foreman, previous to delivering the verdict, said he had been Authorized by his brother jurors, to ask for their expenses. Chairman—A very proper application, gentlemen—just what I should expect from a jury of your intelligence (laughter). The Foreman, seeing that the expenses were not forthcoming, Recommended the learned gentlemen "not to be niggardly;" And after some higgling, the jury received a guinea.

Chairman—You have assessed the damages very properly, Gentlemen; I would do the same myself if I were in the box.

A Juror—We are only sorry that it’s not more, your Worship.

Chairman—Well, I shall give a decree for £40, subject to my decision as to whether the action was properly brought.

Attorney for plaintiff—Mr. James ARMSTRONG. For the Defendants—Mr. M’GAURAN.


This was a process for £8, loss and damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of defendant having sold him a cow, which he engaged to be all right and sound, but which was unsound at the time of sale, and afterwards, died.. A jury of three was sworn to try the case. The defendant is Mr. Arthur ELLIS, the extensive merchant of this town; and it appeared that on Friday, the 22nd of June last, he sold some cows to plaintiff at the fair of Killeshandra. The cows were driven to plaintiff’s farm by a man he engaged for that purpose. Plaintiff did not see the cows until the following Monday, but his herd, Thomas AFRICAN, complained to him on the previous day that one of the cows was sick of the disease called "red-water". Plaintiff wrote to Mr. Ellis on Tuesday, the 26th of June, telling him that the cow was ill. The cow died within the week. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff, Thomas AFRICAN, gave a most unique description of the disease under which the cow laboured, and also stated that he skinned the animal after its decease, and found that "her lungs wor perboiled; there was a curboil crust on her lungs, and lumps of fat stickin’ to her ribs." For the defence it was contended that the cow was perfectly sound at the time of sale; that the disease called "red-water" comes on suddenly— in many cases in a few hours; and is often caused by a change of pasture, or driving the animal in warm weather. Witnesses having been examined for the defence,

His Worship left the case to the jury, who found for the defendant, And the case was dismissed without prejudice.

Attorney for plaintiff—Mr. E. M’GAURAN. For defendant—Mr. James ARMSTRONG and Mr. KNIPE.

The Court then adjourned till ten o’clock next morning.


His Worship took his seat on the Bench at half-past ten this morning. The Following are the cases that created any interest:--


This was an action brought to recover £30, loss and damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of defendants having violated their contract in not conveying five tons of culm coal from Dublin to Cavan, as they had engaged to do.

Mr. James ARMSTRONG appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. E. M'GAURAN for defendants.

A special jury was called to try the case. One of the jurors (Mr. MOORE, Ballymacue), said he did not with to be on the jury, as he had an interest in the company. He was accordingly allowed to leave the box, and the following gentlemen were sworn on the jury:--Mr. James HARTLEY, foreman; Messrs Henry DOUGLAS, Edward FEGAN, Hugh BRADY, George GRAHAM, Alexander KETTYLE, Patrick SMITH, James HOPKINS, Joseph TREVOR, Patrick FLOOD, John MOORE, and James SIMONS.

It appeared that plaintiff, who is engaged in the lime-burning business, ordered on the 15th of November last, five tons of culm coal from Mr. HAGUE, of Cavan, who gave the order to a Dublin company, and the culm was to be brought to Cavan in one of the defendant's waggons. By some mistake the culm did not arrive, and, as was alleged, plaintiff's kiln had to remain idle in consequence for six weeks, at the season during which his business is best. He could get no culm in Cavan, or Dublin, and no other description of coal is suitable for lime-burning. While expecting the coal ordered by him to arrive, he obtained from Mr. HAGUE a transfer-the culm being originally consigned to Mr. HAGUE, for plaintiff's use. At length a waggon of coal arrived at Crossdoney station, and the station-master, Mr. MYLEY, apprised plaintiff of the fact, thinking it was the one ordered by him. He went there, and examined the coal, but found that it was blacksmith's coal and not culm. Culm does not smoke, and any description of coal which smokes is unfit for burning lime. Plaintiff stated that he would not take £20, and be again so embarrassed for want of culm as he was in consequence of the culm ordered by him not having arrived. He was recommended to write to the Broadstone, and some letters passed between him and the officers of the company. He further stated that he could not get culm from Dublin, through either Mr. LOUGH or Mr. DOUGLAS, at that time. Mr. MYLEY, the station-master at Crossdoney, was examined on the part of the plaintiff. The only witness called for the defence was Mr. John HAGUE, who stated, in the course of his evidence, that his father had received a waggon of coal from the railway company, in place of the one ordered by him for plaintiff, and that he was perfectly satisfied with it. The Chairman said that decided the case. Mr. HAGUE was the person who had the transaction with plaintiff. And, although Mr. HAGUE did not receive the coal ordered by him, he had received satisfactory equivalent. He would not, therefore, allow the case to go to the jury.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked his Worship if the recognition of plaintiff by the company, when he got the transfer, did not make the company responsible? The Chairman said it did not. No doubt, plaintiff sustained a loss in consequence of the coal not having arrived; but it was against Mr. HAGUE, to whom he gave his order, that he should have brought his action. He should, therefore, nonsuit the plaintiff.

The jury asked for their expenses.

His Worship recommended Mr. M'GAURAN to comply with the application. MR. M'GAURAN objected, as there had been no verdict, but, after some conversation, he agreed to give the jury a guinea. Mr. KNIPE said he would have an action against one of the jury about the same waggon of culm, as he got it in place of Mr. FINNEGAN; and his grates were like lime kilns since. He would also "have a slap" at the company if he could (laughter),


This was an action brought to recover £12, for the support and maintenance of four children, for which defendant was liable, as executor under the will of their father. Plaintiff's husband, Joseph PORTER, died on the 25th November 1859, leaving five children-one by plaintiff, and the remainder by a former wife. By his will he left to plaintiff and her child a house and farm at Derrylurgan; and to his other children he left some houses in the town of Ballyjamesduff, and also some land in the vicinity of that town. He appointed four executors-his brother Arnold, the present defendant being the acting one. All the children have continued to reside with the plaintiff since the death of their father. It was alleged on the part of the plaintiff that she has supported all the children out of the proceeds of the farm left to her own child, and that defendant has received the rent of the houses in Ballyjamesduff, left to the children by the first marriage, and appropriated it to his own use, without contributing a penny towards their support. For the defence it was alleged that there were no assets available to defendant for the support of the children. Some of the tenants of the houses had gone away without having paid their rents; and what rents defendant did receive were applied by him in "keeping down the head rent." He had also paid a claim on the Derrylurgan farm, but for which plaintiff and the children would have lost it. Defendant produced his receipts in court, and was examined as to the moneys received by him; and a Mr. DUFFY stated that but for the industry of her step-children (the eldest of whom is eighteen years of age) plaintiff could not hold the farm of Derrylurgan, part of which (8-½ acres) she admitted to have sold. Defendant also complained that when he was appointed executor, the plaintiff lodged a caveat, and put him to the expense of "taking out probate".

The Court dismissed the case.

Messrs. KNIPE and M'GAURAN appeared for plaintiff; and Mr. James ARMSTRONG for defendant.


This was a process for £7, a year's rent, for the use and occupation of a house in the town of Ballyjamesduff. The defence was that the rent was paid by defendant to Mrs. PORTER, the plaintiff in the last action, who was examined and stated that a short time before her husband's death (he being then a lunatic confined in Cavan gaol), she let the house in question to defendant; it was then in a bad state of repair; the rent was to be £6 10 s. per year; she was to get the house repaired on condition that defendant paid her a half year's rent in advance; he did so, and she got the house repaired. The repairs cost her over £4 She has since got shop goods from defendant to nearly the amount of another half year's rent. It was contended for the plaintiff that Mrs. PORTER had no authority to let the house, and that the payment of rent to her was not a legal payment-plaintiff being his deceased's brother's executor.

The Court ruled that although it was a hardship on defendant, no credit could be allowed for any payment made to Mrs. PORTER, except for what the repairs of the house cost. A decree for the balance was then given.

For plaintiff-Mr. James ARMSTRONG. For defendant-Mr. E. M'GAURAN This was the last case of any interest heard; and, in consequence of there still remaining a large number of cases to be disposed of, his Worship adjourned the session at half-past three o'clock until ten o'clock on Monday next, when the cases still unheard will be gone on with.

FATAL ACCIDENT--We regret to state that a fatal accident occurred at the railway works in the vicinity of Butlersbridge on yesterday. A young lad, named Patrick M'GAHARAN, about seventeen or eighteen years of age, was working, as a labourer, in one of the cuttings, when a portion of the embankment fell in, and caused such severe injuries to him that he had to be removed to the County Infirmary, where he died shortly after his arrival. Too much care cannot be used in works of this description, as such accidents as the above are of too frequent occurrence.

ROBBERY AND LAMENTABLE ACCIDENT--On the night of Thursday, the 27th ult., some miscreants effected an entrance into the coach- house of Joseph STORY, Esq., J.P., Bingfield, and cut open the cushions of his carriages, taking with them a large quantity of curled hair. They also cut and injured the panels of the carriages, and effected injury to the amount of nearly £50. On the following morning Mr. STORY gave intimation of the robbery to the police. Constable M'AULEY of the Farnham station, thinking he had a clue to the perpetrators, volunteered to endeavour to discover them. His suspicions pointed to a numerous and daring gang of robbers who have located themselves in the mountain between Grousehall and the eighth mile- stone on the Dublin road, and who, it is said, transmit their booty to Dundalk and other places, and have, as yet, escaped detection. Mr. STORY supplied the constable with a car, and he started on his journey. Having brought the car with him as far as he could, he proceeded on foot towards the place where he expected to find the robbers, bringing a man with him. Passing up a lane leading to the mountain, the constable was about to cross a small stone fence or wall when it gave way, and, to save himself, he leaped off; but the little mountain path was covered with ice, and sad to relate, his foot slipped, and he fell--his arm coming under him, and the bone breaking almost to the wrist. Of course, he was unable to proceed further on his journey, and had to be driven into Cavan, where the bone was set by Dr. MALCOMSON. In consequence of the place at which it was broken the operation was a most painful one--and we are sorry to state that the constable still suffers extremely. Dr. MALCOMSON is most unceasing in his attention, but is apprehensive that he will never have the proper use of his arm. Should this opinion unfortunately proof correct, Constable M'AULEY will be obliged to leave the service. We believe we are not saying too much, when we state that in our opinion, there are few more zealous and active constables in the service. During the time M'AULEY has been stationed in this county, he devoted himself, with peculiar aptitude and success, to the detection of crime. For his exertions in breaking up the gang of robbers, for whom "Sap M'GOVERN" acted as receiver-general, he received the thanks of the Grand Jury at Quarter Sessions, and they pressed his services upon the Chairman of the County. The memorial was forwarded to the authorities, and a sum of £5 was awarded to him...He has a large family depending on him, and his wife was confined a few days before the accident.

January 12, 1861



In the Matter of the ESTATE of the Assignees of William RODDY, an Insolvent Debtor, deceased, Owners Exparte Francis FITZGERALD, Esq., Petitioner

The Landed Estates Court will, on Thursday the 17th of January, 1861, at the hour of Twelve o'Clock, noon, at the court, Four Courts, Inns-quay, Dublin

in one Lot, the Lands of

With a subdenomination called SALCONY, containing as per rental, 106a. 2r. and 4p., Irish plantation measure, situate in the barony of Clonkelly, and county of Fermanagh, held under the Earl of Erne by lease for lives renewable for ever, and producing a nett annual profit rent of £98 12s. 1½d.

Dated this 21st day of November, 1860, C. E. DOBBS, Examiner

THE REVS.DR. MILLAR, Vicar of Belfast, and S. G. POTTER, Incumbent of Stratford-on-Slaney, Diocese of Leighlin--It is sufficiently known, through the medium of the public journals, under what circumstances legal proceedings have been instituted by the Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore, against the well- known and deservedly-respected clergymen of our Church named above. The simple fact in the case is, that the Rev. Dr. MILLAR invited the Rev. S. G. POTTER to preach in his church in Belfast on 12th August, and in aid of the Ballysillan Church Fund. The Bishop issued an inhibition against Mr. POTTER's preaching in Dr. MILLAR's church. The latter, conceiving that he had ample and entire control over his own pulpit, to open it to any lawfully ordained minister of our Church of sound doctrine, of exemplary life, and of unsullied character, requested Mr. POTTER to preach, as he had undertaken, and as Dr. MILLAR had invited him to do; and that Mr. POTTER preached accordingly in Dr. MILLAR's church. In consequence of the disregard shown to his Lordship's inhibition, he has instituted a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court against each of these clergymen respectively....The following Clergymen and Gentlemen have kindly consented to receive contributions toward defraying the expenses of the Revs. Dr. MILLAR and S. G. POTTER in this suit: The Rev. C. S. STANFORD, D.D.; Rev. E. NANGLE, Rev. B. H. JOHNSTON, Rev. Thomas WALLACE, Rev. Thomas SCOTT, Thomas H. THOMPSON, Esq.; Lieutenant Colonel BOYES, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer, 21 Clarinda terrace, Kingstown.


On Monday night between seven and eight o'clock, a premeditated and brutal attack was made on two workmen, named Patrick and John RIGNEY, employed on the Midland Great Western Railway, on their return home from work, by a party of gangers who lay in wait for them, at Monk-land, about a mile from the station. Fortunately for the RIGNEYs they were accompanied at the time by their aged father and two sisters, who endeavoured to protect them from the brutal assault of the party, and did ultimately save their lives. John RIGNEY was fearfully cut on the head and face; Patrick, through the interference of the women,escaped with some bruises, after he had been knocked down and kicked. Intimation of the occurrence was at once conveyed to town, when Head-Constable M'LOUGHLIN and a strong party of police proceeded to the scene of the outrage, and following in quick pursuit, succeeded in arresting three of the party, who have been fully identified. At the time of arrest one of these men was sprinkled with the blood of his intended victim, and another was armed with a bludgeon bearing similar evidence of the murderous work it was engaged in. Dr. HETHERINGTON visited the RIGNEYS, on Tuesday, and found them so much injured that he refused to certify that they were likely to recover, and information to the above effect having been sworn before William PIDGEON, Esq., J.P., and J. ROSS, Esq., R.M.; the prisoners were committed for trial. Head-Constable M'LOUGHLIN deserves much credit for the activity he used in this as on other occasions in the arrest of persons charged with crime.

ALARMING FIRE IN PORTADOWN--A most destructive fire took place in this town between the hours of three and four o'clock on Monday morning, in the premises occupied by Mr. Alexander M'KELVEY, grocer, &c., High street; and so rapid was the con- flagration that ere sufficient assistance could be rendered, the adjoining premises occupied by Mr. William TROUTON, grocer, &c., likewise became a prey to the devouring element....The premises in rere of those first attacked (and occupied by Mr. John STONLEY) also became ignited, and were completely gutted. .....Belfast News-Letter

(From a Correspondent)

The Presentment Sessions previous to Spring Assizes, were held here on Thursday, the 3rd instant, in the Grand Jury Room of the Court House, which was crowded to excess, owing to the great excitement elicited by the application for compensation about to be made by Mr. GRIFFITH, of Knappa, for the alleged malicious burning of about £200 worth of hay and straw on the 4th October last. The presiding justices were Charles ADAMS, John Harvey ADAMS, and B. Samuel ADAMS, Esqrs. The cesspayers were Messrs. CHAMBERS, SHARP, M'COMB, REILLY, DONOHOE, &c.;

John G. TATLOW, Esq J.P., Secretary of the Grand Jury, was also in attendance.

The usual read and other presentments having been disposed of, Mr. GRIFFITH's claim was gone into.

Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG, the Crown Solicitor, with Mr. MAHAFFY, appeared for Mr. GRIFFITH, and Messrs. SWANSEA and KNIPE appeared on behalf of the rate-payers of the district.

Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG was about stating the case on the part of Mr. GRIFFITH when a technical objection as to the mode of bringing the case was raised by Mr. SWANSEA, which, however, the justices ruled in favor of Mr. ARMSTRONG.

Mr. ARMSTRONG then continued his statement, recapitulating a number of malicious outrages alleged to have been committed upon Mr. Griffith's property, since he came to reside in the district, some of which have been enumerated by your correspon- dent "Pax". He concluded by describing the injury for which compensation was now sought. He then handed in a map of Mr. Griffith's premises, which was sworn to by Mr. G. SLOANE, surveyor.

Mr. Griffith was then examined, and deposed on all the outrages committed upon him since 1855...With regard to the outrage for which he sought compensation, he stated that he gave a "harvest home" on the 4th of October, to which he invited a number of his neighbours and labourers, and some also came who were not invited by him. After treating all who came, he left them amusing themselves in the barn, and went into supper with a Mr. BROWNE and another friend. Whilst at supper his son, William, came in and called him out, without mentioning what he wanted with him. When he went he saw the fire, and returned for his hat, but did not mention the circumstance to his friends. On going out a second time, he went for the police to Shercock--distant from his residence about three miles, but his messenger met them coming towards the house, as they had seen the fire in Shercock. The straw was piled in cocks so close together that it was impossible to extinguish the fire. The fire originated in the cock farthest from the barn in which the people were amusing themselves, and the wind was blowing in the direction of the other cocks. The hay was in the vicinity of the straw, and took fire immediately afterwards. The hay and straw consumed amounted to over £190 worth. The fire must have been caused by a match, as no trace of turf or anything with which it could have been effected was found.....Mr. Griffith's son was then examined, and corroborated his father's testimony, except in one particular, relative to a charge made by a servant girl of his, Hannah RICE, against a labourer of his, named Charles CLARKE, but it did not materially bear upon the present case.

Mr. BROWNE was also examined on behalf of Mr. Griffith, and corroborated his statements, but on cross-examination he bore testimony to the efforts made by the neighbours to save Mr. Griffith's property. In regard to one of them, Edward HAMELL, he deposed that this man was on the top of a burning stack when he went out, and was trying to save it, although his own house, at the opposite side of the road, was in danger at the time. He also gave it as his opinion that the fire was accidental, and would not have occurred but for the tobacco and whiskey given to his visitors by Mr. Griffith.

A man named IRWIN was next examined as to ill-will expressed against Mr. Griffith by a man named M'BRIDE who censured IRWIN for having hired his mare to Mr. Griffith to work a threshing machine--but this was since the fire. He admitted on cross- examination that he bought the mare from Mr. Griffith, and lent it to him afterwards, as part payment of the purchase money....

Considerable discussion ensued upon this point, when a compromise was effected, by Mr. TATLOW, calling over the list of magistrates and cesspayers, and asking them if they considered it necessary to proceed any further with the case. The unanimous reply of magistrates and cesspayers was--that there was no necessity, as they did not consider the burning to have been malicious.

THE ROBBERY AT MR. STORY'S--We understand that the amount of injury done by the gang who effected an entrance into the coach-house of J. STORY, Esq., J.P., Bingfield, though considerable, was not as great as we at first stated. No clue to the perpetrators has, as yet, been discovered. We are happy to state that Constable M'AULY is progressing favourably.

(From a Correspondent)

The townland of Bolderg in the barony of Troagh, has been the scene of a most brutal double murder--Two brothers named James and Robert SHAW resided by themselves on a farm at Bolderg, about two miles from Glalsough, and four from the town of Monaghan. On Friday, the 4th instant, a person proceeded to SHAW's house for the purpose of transacting business when he found both brothers shot dead on the threshold of their own door. The skulls were completely shattered to fragments--a clear proof that the deadly weapon must have been almost, if not entirely, in contact with them. No political or agrarian cause is assigned for the barbarous murder, but it is difficult to disconnect it with the Ribbon conspiracy. On Saturday Charles WADDLE, Esq., held an inquest on the bodies at which Mr. SINGLETON, Esq., R.M., and H. G. JOHNSTON, Esq., J.P., attended. Mr. YOUNG of Monaghan, assisted by Dr. DOUGLAS of Glaslough, made a post mortem examination, and expressed it as their opinion that there must have been four persons engaged in the murder, as they discovered bullet and shot wounds on the heads of the deceased. County Inspector STUART, and sub-Inspector M'KELVIE have been active in endeavouring to procure information, but up to the present without effect; though hopes are entertained of being able to capture the murderers. Two men are in custody on remand, who will be brought up at the adjourned inquest on Friday.

SUDDEN DEATH--On Thursday evening a man named Arthur TUITE, a well-known inhabitant of Downpatrick, died in a very sudden manner. It appears that the deceased and another person went to a public house in Bridge-street, where they had some drink, and after a short time the deceased was left alone in a tap room off the shop, where he was soon after found dead.--Down Reporter


Moynalty, Jan. 4--These were the first sessions held in the Moynalty district for six weeks past. There were in all no less than 60 cases entered for of trespass on roads, &c. There were also a number of assault cases, which occupied the Court a considerable time; but the principal trial entered for hearing was one connected with a landed property in the possession of a Mrs. M'MAHON. This case from its peculiar nature, has for many weeks past, created considerable excitement, and the proceedings were looked forward to with intense interests...

The magistrates in attendance were Thomas BARNES and R. CHARONER, Esqrs.

TAKING FORCIBLE POSSESSION--STRANGE PROCEEDINGS-- The complainant in this case was a woman named Mrs. M'MAHON, living at a place known as Peterville, in this county. She complained of a man named WALSH, from whom she had purchased a property, for that he, on the 17th of November last, at Peterville, with a strong body of other men, numbering eleven persons, came to the land, and after taking forcible possession of the property, assaulted herself and her son, threw their farming implements off the lands, and threatened there and then to kill them, if they made any resistance. Her son stepped forward and remonstrated with the gang on the impropriety of their cruel and unlawful conduct, when one of the party pulled from his pocket a knife, which he brandished and gave a shrill whistle, as if calling others of the gang from a distance. This man declared that required only a "second whistle" to bring as many more "boys" there as would be sufficient to "hunt the M'MAHONs and all belonging to them down to Tralee". From the great violence of the formidable mob the M'MAHONS considered the most prudent course to take was to retire with their lives and therefore they did so, leaving the land in possession of the desperadoes.

The Bench did not, of course, go into the case of the title, but merely dealt with the assault and violence of the party. Informations were ordered to be sworn at once.

January 19, 1861

Magistrates present--W. BABINGTON, Esq., and Captain CARDEN


James SMITH appeared to answer the complaint of John SMITH for having assaulted him on the night of the 2nd of January. The prosecutor (whose head was bandaged) is a respectable looking old man, seventy years of age, and on the night of the 2nd instant he was drinking in the public-house of a man named FITZPATRICK, at Lavey Strand, when he was struck on the head by defendant. He told him "it was a shame for him to strike an old man," and defendant denied that he had done so. When he went out of the house he was again struck on the head with a stick or whip, and severely cut, but he could not swear that defendant was the person who gave him that blow. He afterwards swore informations against defendant for the first assault. Defendant is a young man, a labourer, and had been previously bound over to keep the peace towards the complainant, and the term for which he was bound had only expired a short time before the present assault. He was fully identified by the complainant, but some of the witnesses stated that he was not in the room at all when the assault was com- mitted. FITZPATRICK, the owner of the public-house, could give no evidence relative to the assault; he was sitting at the fire, within a few yards of the room where the complainant was sitting at the time of the first assault, yet he never heard of it, nor of the second assault, the following day. When twitted by complainant, he admitted that he had tried to induce him not to prosecute defendant. He was severely cross-examined by the Court and Mr. John ARMSTRONG, who appeared for complainant. At the termination of the case, the Chairman said they had been occupied with it for a considerable time, and had sifted the evidence, so as to give the defendant the benefit of any doubt that might arise...but there could be no doubt that he had assaulted complainant in Fitzpatrick's house, and very little doubt that he had committed the second assault, although complainant was too tender in his conscience to swear positively against him. Considering the threats previously used by him towards complainant, the fact that he had taken advantage of the termination of his bail to assault an old man, and the cowardly nature of the assault, the Court should impose such a punishment as would be a warning to him in the future. He should be imprisoned and kept at hard labour for one month, and at the termination of that period enter into bail--himself in £10 and two sureties in £5 each, or, in default to be imprisoned for another month. With regard to FITZPATRICK, the Court considered he not acted properly; he appeared to have cared very little what became of the old man who was assaulted in his house, and the only step taken by him was to try and defeat the ends of justice.


John BROWN was charged, on the informations of William BROWN, of Deggan, with stealing a shirt, the property of Joseph HALLIDAY, and the informations further stated that deponent believed the prisoner to be of unsound mind, and likely to do himself or others bodily injury. Wm. BROWN having sworn to the information, the prisoner was sent for trial to the Assizes and the witness was bound over to prosecute.; The Court directed that a hammer and a sharpening stone found with the prisoner should be given to any person who claimed and identified them. The prisoner, who was handcuffed, is a middle-aged man, slightly-made, with regular, sharply-cut features, and restless eyes. He did not speak, or seem to take any interest in the case against him.


Catherine M'CABE was charged with having on the 11th of January, at Pullamore, stolen a quantity of potatoes, value of 6l, the property of Samuel PRATT.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Edward PRATT deposed that on the 11th instant he saw the prisoner lurking about the ditches; suspecting that she was trying to steal some- thing, he went into the house, in order to watch her, and shortly afterwards saw her steal about two stones of potatoes from a heap; he then followed, and took her into custody, but she dropped the potatoes before he caught her.

Mr. Samuel PRATT said that a grend(sic) of his potatoes had been previously stolen.

The prisoner denied that she had stolen the potatoes, and said her husband was a labourer, and that she had two children, one of whom was in her arms.

Mr. Samuel PRATT said he had often seen her husband begging about the country.

The husband, when called up, said he only asked for relief when he could not get work.

He stated that he lived in the Half-Acre.

The police, in reply to the Court, said they knew nothing of the prisoner or her husband.

The Clerk said he thought it right to mention that the prisoner had been brought up, charged with robbery, on a former occasion; but the prosecutor, Joe MAGUIRE, had let her off, through the intercession of a Roman Catholic clergyman, the Rev. Thomas MULVANY, who knew her friends, who, it appeared, lived near Virginia, and were of a better class in life than she seemed to belong to.

Captain CARDEN said it was the husband who should be punished for the robbery, as by his idleness, he left her destitute, although he could get plenty of work.

The Chairman said the husband made a trade of begging, and in sentencing the prisoner to a fortnight's imprisonment, said the punishment was made light in consequence of the severity of the season; but if again brought up for a similar offence in a superior court, and the present conviction recorded against her, transportation would be her fate.


Constable James M'CARTNY summoned Terence SHERIDAN for having been drunk in the public street of Stradone. Service of the summons having been proved, the Constable stated that the defendant (who did not appear) had not been disorderly, and is not an habitual drunkard. A fine of 6d. and costs was imposed.

The Court then rose.


At Charles Church, Plymouth, on the 10th instant, by the Rev. J. C. STREET, Charles M. DEED, Esq., Master of Equity and Administrator General of the Supreme Court of Madras, to Emily Jane Kendal, eldest daughter of the late Major MOORE 12th Regiment, and niece of the Rev. William Prior MOORE and of Nicholas KENDALL, Esq., M.P.

Extract from the Plymouth Morning News: On the occasion of the marriage of J. M. (sic) TEED, Esq., to the niece of one of our Cornish members, the bells of Charles Church rang merry peals throughout the day. The Bride and Bridegroom left for Torquay.


On Sunday morning, the 13th instant at Cullies, Cavan, Mary Anne Clara, the youngest and beloved child of Nathaniel MONTGOMERY, Esq., J.P., aged two years and four months.

On the 10th instant at Killevany, near Ballyhaise, Mrs.. Martha EBBETT, aged 77 years, deeply and deservedly regretted.

At Martello Terrace, Sandymount, in the 81st year of her age, Mrs. WARD, the faithful and beloved servant and friend of the late Marshall KNIPE, Esq., of Erne Hill, in the County Cavan, deeply and deservedly regretted by every member of his family. She died as she lived, trusting in the merits of her Redeemer. Her end was peace.

January 26, 1861


Dublin Castle, January, 1861:--Their Excellencies the Lord Justices have been pleased to appoint the undernamed gentlemen to the office of High Sheriffs of the following Counties and Counties of Cities and Towns in the year 1861:--

Antrim County--Henry H. H. O'HARA, Esq., Crebilly House, Ballymena.
Cavan County--Mathew O'Reilly DEASE, Esq., Dee Farm, Dunleer.
Donegal County--William John FORSTER, Esq., Londonderry.
Down County--Alexander John Robert STEWART, Esq., Ard-House, Cashelmore.
Lietrim County--George WHITE, Esq., Drumkeel, Mohill.
Londonderry City and County--Rowley MILLER, Esq., Moneymore.
Longford County--Henry DONPING(?), Esq., Erne Hall, Granard.
Meath County--Major Stephen H. SMITH, Annebrook, Daleck.
Monaghan County--Henry MITCHELL, Esq., Drumreske, Monaghan
Roscommon County--Patrick BUIFE(?), Esq., South Park, Castlerea.
Tyrone County--William ARCHDALL, Esq., Dromard.


Yesterday, Mr. J. K. JACKSON, Coroner, held an inquest at Carrickfergus, on the body of the Rev. J. P. HETHERINGTON, who was found dead on the morning of the preceding day in his bedroom by a servant, wondering why the deceased kept his room so long, went in and discovered him upon his knees as if engaged in prayer, his head being bent down. Dr. PATRICK was sent for, and on his arrival, it was found that life had been extinct for some time. The medical testimony was to the effect that death had resulted from apoplexy; and a verdict in accordance was returned.


Before Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., J. P., Chairman; William BABINGTON, Esq., J.P., and William M. HICKSON, Esq., R. M.

Peter BRADY v. Phillip RORKE and Francis MULLIGAN

The summons was brought against the first defendant for that he, being the complainant's hired servant until the 14th May 1861, did unlawfully leave his service and against the second defendant for having counselled and abetted RORKE in doing so.

The Chairman said he believed it had been ruled that they had no jurisdiction in cases such as that against the second defendant.

Mr. BABINGTON said that the Barrister had decided that they were not criminal cases.

Mr. BRADY, having been sworn, stated that a day or two after the last November hiring fair he employed RORKE to attend his yard for which he had (illegible) (complainant's) servant girl had told him that Mr. MULLIGAN was trying to induce RORKE to leave his service; he told of having seen Mr. MULLIGAN speaking to RORKE in the yard, and on one occasion he asked what brought him there, and told him not to be interfering with any servant of his, and he said he would not.

RORKE swore that he made no agreement to remain with Mr. BRADY for any specified time; he came to him after the hiring fair, and Mr. BRADY asked him to attend in the yard for a short time, as he had no one to do so; he was to get only his "chances" for tending in the yard; and Mr. BRADY often put "chances" out of his way by (illegible) him off to other work, when people would be about to give him something; BRADY and himself had on one occasion a conversation about entering into an agreement to remain until May; but they did not make the agreement; this occurred in the presence of Mrs. BRADY, and he (RORKE) is willing to abide by her testimony.

The Chairman said the proposition was very fair.

Mr BRADY said he knew his wife would not come to the Court; but he was sure RORKE would not have left him only he was induced to do so, and Mr. MULLIGAN said he would not have RORKE when he (Mr. B) spoke to him.

RORKE said Mr. MULLIGAN had never in any way induced him to leave Mr. BRADY....Mr. MULLIGAN said there had been 7s. 6l of RORKE's wages due, but RORKE had got some tobacco and other things in a shop in Ballyhaise...

The Court nilled the case against Mr. MULLIGAN, and allowed the case against RORKE to stand over, for the production of additional evidence on either side.

Margaret SKELLY v. Christopher HEASLIP

This was a summons for £1 10s. wages due up to the 12th of January, on which night defendant beat and ill-treated complainant, and (illegible) being then his hired servant, Margaret told a very affecting tale in support of her summons, but it was utterly disproved by the testimony of defendant and his servant-man.

The Chairman asked defendant if he was willing to take the girl back. Defendant said he would rather not She had never served him properly, and he would prefer paying her wages up to the time she left him. She was to receive £13s. for the half-year up to May, but she had received 3s. out of that and absenced herself from his service for several days.

The Court gave a (illegible) for the money due to her up to the 12th instant (8s.) without costs.

Charles MAGUIRE v. Catherine REILLY

The summons was brought for the trespass of defendant's goats on complainant's enclosed meadow and (illegible) at Creah on the 31st December, 6th, 7th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, and 17th of January; and also for the trespassing of seven head of cattle. The damage done had been appraised by the valuator, who stated it to have been over 30s. worth, and the trespass was proved by com- plainant's servant.

The Chairman said that turnips were very dear this year, and that defendant seemed to have made a regular habit of allowing her goats to trespass on Mr. MAGUIRE's land.

A fine of 30s., as imposed, but defendant gave a notice of appeal.

The Guardians of Cavan Union v. Susan MASTERSON

Susan, all "wreathed smiles," was brought up to answer a charge of having torn a blue wrapper, value 2s., the property of the Guardians.

The Chairman said that Miss STURLY, the Matron of the Gaol, had just given him an excellent character of Susan; who, she said, was one of the best workers in the gaol.

The Matron of the Workhouse said that Susan was a very good worker when she chose to work and on being sworn, was about to state the charge when

Susan laughingly exclaimed--"I did tear it."

Chairman--Why did you do so? It was a very malicious act. Susan--Och, I was in bad humour an' I didn't know what to do. I was hungry.

The Master locked me up without my breakfast. Chairman--The Master has nothing to do with this case, Susan. How long has she been in gaol?

Porter--Since Wednesday.

Susan having promised not to tear her clothes again, was allowed to return to the Workhouse which she shortly afterwards did.

Same v. Catherine MORGAN

The defendant was charged with having left the Workhouse without permission, and entered it, on her return, on the same day, by crossing the gate--She is from the parish of Lavy, and is a stout woman; has an illegitimate child, and is subject to epileptic fits. Her excuse for the offence charged against her was that she could not get permission to leave the Workhouse, and therefore did so surreptitiously. She had been in gaol since Wednesday--informations having, by direction of the Board of Guardians, been sworn in her case and that of Susan MASTERSON.

The Porter stated that she is in the habit of leaving the Workhouse, and coming into Cavan for what is called "sprigging" work.

The Court sentenced her to a week's imprisonment.

Defendant--Sure I'm in gaol since Wednesday.

Chairman--And you are going there now for a week; and if you leave the Workhouse again without leave, you 'll be apt to get a month, and have your hair well clipped.

Catherine M'MANUS v. Peter SKELLY

The plaintiff stated that defendant hired her in June, and she was to remain with him until Nov., at which time she left him; she was to receive 23s. for her services during that period, and had only got 6s. 4½l; there was 16s, 7½l due to her, which defendant had refused to pay.

Defendant stated plaintiff came to him on the 5th or 6th of June, and was to have eceived the sum she stated in November; she had got 6s. 4½l; on one occasion she absented herself from his service for ten days when she had a sore finger; he asked her at that time to remain in the house, to "keep the children from the fire," so that his wife might assist him in his farming, but she refused, and he was obliged to pay a man 1s. a day in her place; he thought it fair to deduct half this sum (6l per day) from her, and he tendered half this sum balance of her wages on more than one occasion.

The Court considered the deduction a fair one, and gave a decree for 12s. without costs.

Constable M'ANEA v. William SMITH

The defendant is a peripatetic fruit merchant, and well known to the police for his temperate and conjugal qualities. His dexter optic was ornamented in the pre-Napoleanic style of the decorative art, and (illegible) agreeably with the meditative cast of the remaining portion of his countenance. On being questioned as to whom he was indebted for the ornamented luminary, he stated that the artist was "long M'CABE, that gathers rags, your honours," and announced his intention of envoking the terrors of the law against the elongated M'CABE for laying on the colours too heavily. It would appear that after MIchael Angelo M'CABE had painted his "peeper" the unhappy fruiterer fell into the hands of Constable M'ANEA, who escorted him to the model lodging house of which he is one of the care-takers, but let him depart on the following morning on his promising to present himself at Court to-day.

Mr. BABINGTON said SMITH was a drunken fellow--a very bad character--and was in the habit of beating his unfortunate wife.

SMITH--I was doin' nothing on her on Saturday night, your honour. It was long M'CABE (illegible) across me!

The Chairman was of the opinion that a 48 hours' sojourn in gaol would do Mr. SMITH no harm, but that gentleman, not entertaining the same opinion, said he would prefer "payin' a shillin' or two, comin' on the market," and after some conversation, the Court took a merciful view of his case, and allowed him to depart--the Chairman advising him to mend his ways, but expressing a strong doubt of his doing so.

The Court then rose.


On 8th Dec. 1860, at Corosal, British Headquarters, the lady of Staff Surgeon R. THORNTON, of a daughter.

On the 19th inst., at 53 Lower Mountpleasant-avenue, Dublin, the wife of R. S. JACOB, of a son.

On the 18th inst., at Stradball Hall, Queen's County, the wife of Robert G. CROSSBY, Esq., (Iniskillen Dragoons), of a daughter.

On the 20th Nov., 1860, at Malligaun, Bombay, the wife of J. C TRESTRULL (? )a, Surgeon of Her Majesty's 6th Regiment, of a son.


On the 22nd December, at Kingston, Jamaica, the Hon. Richard O'REILLY, Judge of her Majesty's Supreme Court in that island.

On the 29th December, at Georgina, Canada West, Alexander SAUNDERSON, Esq., eldest surviving son of the late Colonel SAUNDERSON, of Castle Saunderson, co. Cavan.

On the 17th inst., at his residence, Castle-Dawson-avenue, Blackrock, Charles HUTTON, Esq., aged 66.


INQUEST--On Wednesday last a man named SMITH, whilst cutting "scollops" in a wood near the Kilmore Cathedral, discovered the body, or rather skeleton of a man, lying in a dense part of the wood... An inquest was held on yesterday before Mr. POLLOCK and a respectable jury. Dr. MALCOMSON stated it as his impression that the man must have been dead for ten or twelve months..In what appeared to have been a pocket were found 4s. in silver, a razor, and some soap. No identification could, of course, be made; but it is thought that the remains are those of a man named PAYNE, belonging to this county, who was discharged from the army for insanity, and has been missing during the last ten or twelve month. His mother, at present, resides in Dublin, and the inquest was adjourned for the purpose of communicating with her. It is very singular that the body could have remained so long undiscovered, as a man named BRADY declared at the inquest that he recently passed within a few paces of the spot where it was found.


On Sunday last, between two and three o'clock, a respectable Roman Catholic gentleman named BRADY, while on his return from Mullingar, where he had been (illegible) to his residence at Kilpatrick, was attacked by four men armed with heavy bludgeons, who beat him savagely, leaving him for dead, and then decamped. Mr. BRADY was found lying in this position when some persons who shortly afterward came up and conveyed him back to Mulligan where his wounds were dressed. Mr. BRADY holds some land under the trustees of Erasmus SMITH's schools, and gives a good deal of employment. Two men have been arrested and identified by him as being of the party by which he was attacked. They have been fully committed for trial. The only cause assigned for this wanton outrage is the fact of Mr. BRADY having found it necessary at the last Quarter Sessions to decree a tenant named DALY for nonpayment of rent. Mr. BRADY is not expected to recover.--Evening Mail


A MAN COMMITTED ON A CHARGE OF MURDERING HIS WIFE AT DROMORE WEST.--We are sorry to record that another man, James DUNLAVEY, has been committed to gaol on the coroner's warrant, charged with the murder of Catherine, his wife. She is alleged to have died from the injuries received on the head while sleeping in bed. The husband asserts that she died from a fall of a stone. The circumstances of the case, however, are so suspicious that he is committed on a charge of "Wilful Murder."--Sligo Independent.

CURIOUS AND DARING ATTEMPT AT ABDUCTION IN SLIGO. John CONNOR, Dominick M'DONOGH, Peter DOLAN, and Thomas BOYLE, were arrested by Constable STEELE and party, at Drum- cliffe, for breaking into the house of Michael OATES, at Winsfort, and forcibly carrying away his daughter, Maria, whom they brought to Michael M'PARTLAND's, on the Mall. It would appear that their object was to have taken all three, but Ellen and Catherine escaped out of the window, and gave the alarm to their brothers, who reported the affair to the police. They took the girl out of her bed, and brought her with only a few clothes upon her.--The men were brought to the police barrack, but after considerable hesitation, they girl declined to prosecute. It is said that the girl was intended for CONNOR, and that had he obtained her, he would have had his way with her.

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.