Published in Cavan, county Cavan

March 2, 1861


A FIRST-RATE FAMILY CAR, lately Built by DORAN, of Dublin. To be seen at Mr. Hugh REILLY's, Coach, Painter, Main-street, Cavan.


A Return just received from the Canadian Government, made by Eighty-five Municipalities in Canada, shows a great demand for Labourers and Artisans. The following will find immediate employment and good wages:--Farm Labourers, House Servants, Boys and Girls from 13 to 16 years of age, Blacksmiths, Tin smiths, Foundrymen, Bricklayers, Masons, Joiners, Carpenters, Coopers, Shoemakers, Tailors, and Miners.

For full and authentic information, as well as for Passage by the Canadian Mail Steamers and Sailing Ships, apply to
SABLE & SEARLE, 19, Water-Street, Liverpool.

N.B.--The attention of Boards of Guardians and others is directed to the above announcement.




This case commenced on Friday, as stated in our last impression, and was resumed at the sitting of the Court on Saturday. The plaintiff is John WARREN, of Brucehall, and the defendant is a former redding near Mohill, in the county of Lietrim. The action was brought to recover 300l loss and damages sustained by plaintiff in consequence of defendant not having fulfilled a contract entered into between himself and the plaintiff and the late Mr. FARIS, of Cloggy, by which contract, it was alleged, defendant engaged to sell them 100 tons of hay, at 4l per ton. The case was partly heard at the previous Assizes, but defendant made an application to amend his plea, and an adjournment was granted. >From the evidence produced on the part of the plaintiff it appeared that in January, 1860, defendant engaged to sell 100 tons of hay to plaintiff and Mr. FARIS. Plaintiff gave 1l as earnest. The hay was to be taken away when required, in such quantities as might suit plaintiff and Mr. Faris, who intended to resell the hay. In February 1860, plaintiff and Mr. Faris posted bills about the country stating that a large quantity of hay would be sold in lots on the lands of Creenagh (were defendant resides), "application to be made to Mr. John Warren, Brucehall, and Mr. Faris Cloggy." In February, when as was alleged, hay was rising in price, defendant refused to deliver up the hay, and sold it himself to different parties.....A great number of witnesses were examined on both sides; but the case was not of sufficient public interest to warrant as in giving the evidence in detail....Eight issues were sent to the jury. After a deliberation of an hour and three quarters, the jury found for the plaintiff--damages 75l....The jury asked for compensation for their loss of time, and his Lordship regrets he had no power to allow more than the usual sum.

Counsel for plaintiff--Mr. BROOKE, Q.C., Mr. DOWSE, and Mr. HAMILTON. Agent--Mr. CARMICHAEL.

For Defendant--Mr. M'CAUSLAND, Q.C., and Mr. CARSON. Agent--Mr. WALSH.

Enniskillen, Wednesday, Feb. 25.

The Commission was opened here on Saturday, but at so late an hour that very little business was transacted.


James JOHNSTONE, the prosecutor, stated that while himself and John M'DOWELL were sitting in a public house in Enniskillen the prisoners came in and asked them what they were. They said Protestants. The prisoners said they were Roman Catholic, but that it was all the same. One of them asked M'DOWELL to shake hands, and while doing so M'DOWELL was struck by him. Witness said it was a shame and told them to make it up and shake hands. They did so, but afterwards refused to let witness and M'DOWELL, and while endeavouring to do so they struck them both.

The prisoners under the advice of their counsel, Mr. DOWSE, pleaded guilty to a common assault. The prisoners were sentenced to one month's imprisonment each.

Messrs. MAJOR, Q.C., and S. Y. JOHNSTONE, prosecuted

Andrew BYERS was indicted for assault and robbery; and before or after such robbery, stabbing, cutting, or wounding.

The prosecutor stated that he had gone to England with cattle, and was returning home with £127, the proceeds of sale, and on the morning of the 23rd of April he was proceeding to the fair of Blacklion, when a little above Claddagh he met a man with a hammer or pick in his hand, who attacked , struck him, and rendered with insensible. When he recovered he missed the money, but had previously felt him tearing his waistcoat.

The prisoner was defended by Mr. DOWSE. Messrs. MAJOR, Q.C., and HAMILTON prosecuted.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.



Mr. DOWSE appeared for the plaintiff.

Mr. GRAHAM, the attorney for the defendant, objected that the process stated a delivery to the servant of the plaintiff and not to himself. This being overruled.

It appeared that the defendant was a publican; the plaintiff and others were in the habit of leaving their horses standing in the defendant's yard during the fair days, paying the sum of two pence to the servant of defendant; plaintiff's horse was stolen and the question now was whether or not the defendant was liable as an innkeeper. The defendant admitted he was in the habit of charging.

His Lordship held that he was liable as an innkeeper, and gave a decree for 7l.


This was an action for assault on plaintiff and striking his horse, and for spilling bogstuff in the pound.

The defence was a traverse of the assault, and a justification that the plaintiff was trespassing.

After the examination of the first witness, and on the production of the deeds proving the plaintiff's title, the Judge was of opinion that there was a legal estate in the plaintiff.

A verdict was accordingly directed to be entered for him, with liberty to the defendant to apply to enter up a verdict for him if that direction was wrong.

On Tuesday Baron HUGHES having disposed of the civil business, tried the following criminal case;--



The prisoner in this case was indicted for obtaining money under false pretences. The indictment set forth that the prisoner being an evil disposed person did fraudulently intending to cheat and defraud certain persons on the 14th day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1860, at Brookboro', in the County of Fermanagh, did unlawfully, knowingly and designedly falsely pretend that the said Anne M'AVINE had influence with certain beings called fairies, and, that through the agency of the said fairies she would obtain a large sum of money, to wit 11,000l by means of false pretences,&c.;

Jane DAWSON, of Brookboro' deposed that the prisoner was in the habit of offering to obtain money for her from the fairies; she at last consented and give her 2l, 11s, 6d, for which sum the prisoner was to have obtained for her 11,000l , at the same time swearing her to secrecy on the Bible....For all this she received a bottle of oil to rub on her eyes when she should arrive in Scotland, where she was going; that when she would do so she would see a gentleman who would bring her to a house where she would get the money from the fairies, but she never got any.

The jury found the prisoner guilty. Baron HUGHES, in passing sentence, stated that he did not suppose there was another person in the county believed these assertions, except the prosecutrix, but as it was necessary for him to protect those parties, he would sentence the prisoner to twelve months' imprisonment.


Mr. Baron FITZGERALD arrived from Dublin on Tuesday, and took his seat on the bench at half-past eleven o'clock.

The commission having been read by Patrick J. BYRNE, Esq., Clerk of the Crown, the Grand Jury were re-sworn......

His Lordship then proceeded to fiat the presentments at the close of which the following crown cases were disposed of:--

John DUNCON, who was indicted for the larceny of a shirt from a woman, Named BELLEW, and a scarf and shawl from one Rose WATERS, pleaded guilty. Sentence deferred.


Philip REILLY, a publican, was indicted for having on the 11th August, 1860, feloniously and willfully placed stones on the rails of the Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway between the Dunleer and Castlebellingham stations, with intent thereby to obstruct and overthrow the engines and carriages upon the said railway.

It appeared upon the evidence of a labourer in the employment of the railway company, named PLUNKET, that on the evening of the 11th of August last the prisoner was walking on the line and was tipsy; that he placed a stone on the outside part of the up line; and walked on 16 or 17 yards and placed two other stones, at short distances from each other, in similar positions to the first stone. A second labourer of the company deposed also to seeing the prisoner on the line on the evening in question, and that he was tipsy, but he did not see the prisoner putting down the stones. PLUNKET deposed to removing the stones, so that no injury was occasioned by the acts of the prisoner.

The defence was that the charge was concocted by PLUNKET, who was known in the country by the sobriquet of "Mickey the blackguard," and that he had previously threatened to injure the prisoner. The witnesses deposed to having heard PLUNKET use threatening language toward the prisoner, who received an excellent character from several members of the grand jury.

His Lordship charged the jury, who found a verdict of acquittal.



The Hon. Judge HAYES arrived in Drogheda on Monday.

Grand Jury--Thomas CARTY, Esq., foreman; John CHADWICK, James MATTHEWS, Francis CHADWICK, Patrick MATTHEWS, Patrick CASEY, George DAVIS, John M'CANN, Patrick BOYLAN, Peter M'EVOY, Robert E. ELLIS, Robert H. KELLY, James LATIMER, George KNAGGS, Joseph DEAN, Henry HULL, Patrick J. GREY, Henry HAMILTON, William BOYLAN, Henry MOORE, Patrick BYRNE, and John M'CAY, Esqrs.

His Lordship said that he was happy to observe, notwithstanding the absence of one of their number, that sufficient remained to discharge the important duties which devolved upon them....The fiating of the presentments was then proceed with.

There being no criminal business on the calendar, the High Sheriff, after some complimentary observations, presented to his lordship a pair of handsomely embroidered kid gloves. His lordship said he was happy to accept them....This terminated business of the assizes.


Magistrates present:--Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., Chairman; and William BABINGTON, Esq.

Patrick and Ellen ROONEY v. Robert MORROW; and Robert MORROW v. Patrick and Ellen ROONEY

Both cases were charges of assault. A pass runs between ROONEY's land and that of MORROW's. ROONEY was repairing and making some alteration in the fence at his side of the pass, where it meared his own land, and MORROW interfered, in order to prevent him doing so, upon which a scuffle ensued, in which MORROW appeared to have come off only second best, having received some severe lows on the head, either from ROONEY or his wife or sister, both of whom were present. Ellen ROONEY's arm was severely cut by a blow with a spade, inflicted, as she stated, by MORROW. The Court considered the latter altogether in fault, as he had no right to interfere with ROONEY, and fined him 5s, with 5s costs, for the assault upon ROONEY and his sister, His own summons were dismissed.

Mr. John ARMSTRONG appeared for ROONEY and his sister.

William HAYES v. James KITCHESON

The summons was brought to recover possession of a house belonging to plaintiff, held by defendant, at the weekly rent of 2s 6d. Defendant's wife appeared, and stated that her husband, a tobacco spinner, had left town in search of employment, that she has six children depending on her, and does not know where to get another home. Service of the notice to quit and demand for possession having been proved, a decree for possession was given--defendant being allowed the usual seven days' grace.

Owen HENRY v. Michael LYNCH

This was a summons for 9s, balance of £4 wages earned by plaintiff as hired servant to defendant. Defendant did not appear, and a decree was given for the amount claimed.


Complainant stated that he hired defendant in last November for the half year; he left him on Thursday; he assigned no reason for doing so, but "he said something about his meat not being sufficient."

Defendant stated that he received bad treatment from complainant--who only gave him "dry stirabout in the morning, dry stirabout at night, thin gruel and bread, without any 'kitchen,' for dinner;" the "potatoes were picked for the parlour," and only frost-bitten and diseased ones were given to him; and complainant had also sent him to steal turf, which he objected to do.

Complainant said that he gave defendant "flesh three times a week;" on Sundays he gave him "part of a goose"--in fact, defendant received the same diet as himself and his family. He denied having ever sent defendant to steal turf; and his evidence was corroborated by his son.

The Chairman inquired if he would take back the defendant, and complainant said he would do so if defendant conducted himself properly. Defendant said he was willing to go back if complainant "altered his hand" in the dietary department.

The Court said he had his choice either to go back to his master or go to gaol, and that if he had any complaint to make against his master he could summon him. His master kept him during the short winter days, and should, therefore, get the benefit of the long days which were not approaching.

Defendant (who, whatever may be the faults of Mr. CULLEN's cuisine, did not look like a man who had been subjected to very Lenten fare) reluctantly submitted to this arrangement.


William WALSH, a young man charged with desertion from the Cavan Militia, was again brought up in custody, a notification having been received from the Secretary of State, in reply to the letter of the magistrates, that the prisoner should be dealt with summarily. It appears that immediately after the first disembodiment of his regiment, he enlisted in the 16th Regiment of Infantry, in which he since served, being ignorant that he had committed any offence in enlistening in the line without leave from the Adjutant or other commanding officer of the Militia. Having lately obtained a furlough, he, in passing through this town, called at the barracks, to see some of the persons with whom he was formerly acquainted in the Militia. He was there taken into custody, and (illegible). The Court regretted much that they had no alternative but to fine him 40s, or, in default, two months' imprisonment, but would be happy to sign a memorial for him for mitigation of punishment. The prisoner paid the fine, saying he had to be back to his regiment on Wednesday, when his furlough would expire, and he had no wish to remain in gaol. The Court said they would do all in their power to get him back his money. Sergeant O'BRIEN said he would prepare a memorial for that purpose, and the Court said they would sign it.


Peter M'LENNON, publican, Bridge-street, was brought up in custody charged with having stolen £9, from the person of George TAAFFE, farmer, of Legga, in the county Longford, on the night of the 22nd February.

Mr. John ARMSTRONG appeared for the prisoner.

It appeared from the evidence of TAAFFE and a friend of his named DEGNAN, both of whom were in Cavan on business, that the former stabled his horse in M'LENNON's yard, on the above day, and afterwards went to the Bank to pay a bill of exchange for £20. Both before and after his return from the Bank, he had some drink in M'LENNON's house. In the evening, a little intoxicated, he went out, and was met by DEGNAN, who brought him to his own lodging, but as there was a sick woman in the house, he thought it best to see him to M'LENNON's. DEGNAN and M'LENNON helped TAAFFE to bed, and the former suggested that it would be best to search him, in order to see what money he had about him.--M'LENNON did so, and got a couple of shillings and some coppers in his pockets. He then put his hand into his inside breast pocket, and pulled out the bill of exchange and docket, and handed them to DEGNAN, but in doing so the latter swore he saw M'LENNON put something into his own pocket, and afterwards, whilst he (DEGNAN) was looking at the bill of exchange, M'LENNON again put his hand into his pocket, as if to shove down what he had put into it. But not thinking that TAAFFE could have much money left, after paying the bill of exchange, he made no remark, and gave the bill of exchange to M'LENNON, who afterwards gave it to his wife. TAAFFE, who was at this time insensible, slept for some hours, and on awaking came down to the kitchen, where DEGNAN was sitting, and, in reply to a remark made by the latter, said he had lost his money. DEGNAN told him his money was safe, and got the bill of exchange from M'LENNON's wife, when TAAFFE told them that he had £9 in notes in the same pocket. DEGNAN told Mrs. M'LENNON privately of what he saw her husband doing, and requested her to speak to him, and induce him to give up the money. She did so, and DEGNAN himself charged him with it, but M'LENNON denied having taking anything from the pocket of TAAFFE except what he had shown to DEGNAN. DEGNAN (illegible) with TAAFFE that night, and in the morning went to one of the Roman Catholic clergymen to request him to induce M'LENNON to give up the money, but the priest being unable to do so, they went to Mr. THOMPSON, J.P., before whom they swore informations, and who issued a warrant for the arrest of M'LENNON.

The Court decided to send the case for trial to the Quarter Sessions, and to accept bail for the prisoner's appearance--himself in £20, and two sureties in £10 each.

TAAFFE and DEGNAN were bound over to prosecute.


Mr. M'MILLAN appeared to prefer a complaint against James QUINN and Thomas CALLAGHAN for trading as pedlars without a license.

Mr. John ARMSTRONG protested against the service of the summons, as the defendants had left town previous to its having been issued.

The Summons-Server said the summons was served at their lodgings and they slept there the previous night.

Mr. ARMSTRONG said Mr. M'MILLAN could not be the prosecutor. It was the Excise should prosecute and he could merely be a witness. Mr. M'MILLAN said any party could prosecute. Mr. ARMSTRONG contended that Mr. M'MILLAN had no authority from the Excise to prosecute, and recommended him to drop it. Mr. M'MILLAN said he would not do so, as threats had been made towards him.

The Court postponed the case for a week.

March 9, 1861


Magistrates present:--Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., Chairman; and William BABINGTON, Esq.

Catherine CORCORAN v. Patrick REILLY, of Stradone

This was a summons for wages. The plaintiff lately summoned defendant's sister for the amount now claimed; but as it appeared that though Miss REILLY hired the plaintiff she was at the (illegible) acting as housekeeper for the defendant, who has since got married,the Court dismissed the case, telling plaintiff she might sue the present defendant.

Defendant applied for a postponement and on being sworn, stated that he wished to summon his sisters as witnesses, as they would not attend without a summons.

The Court consented to the postponement, and informed the plaintiff that if she succeeds in proving her case on next court day, her costs will be allowed to her.

Daniel KELLAGHER, of Cavan, v. Andrew BRADY, of Castleterra.

The complaint in this case was that defendant had obtained sixpence from complainant under false pretences. The complainant, who is a baker, stated, on being sworn, that defendant, "rattled a watch at John MAGUIRE's in Bridge-street, on the 9th of February;" he took a ticket, "threw" on the watch, and won it, but defendant refused to give it to him.

Defendant said that complainant threw for another man and himself, and did not give him any money for his own ticket.

Complainant said he proffered the money, and the defendant refused to take it, and was proceeding to make further statements concerning the management of the raffle, when

The Chairman said he thought the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, as it was a gambling transaction.

Clerk--I told him so, when he came for the summons.

KELLAGHER--Here's my ticket, your Honour.

Chairman--We don't want to see it, a nuisance gambling transaction, and we can't entertain your summons. If the defendant took your money in a lawful way we could give you redress.

KELLAGHER--Can I appeal to the Barrister, your Honour?

Chairman--You may appeal to Chief Justice MONAGHAN, if you like.

Edward FEGAN v. Thomas PATTERSON and Robert COWAN

This summons was brought under the provisions of the Towns' Improvement (Ireland) Act, for defendants having allowed a soakage from a privy or cesspool to flow into complainant's premises, to the annoyance and injury of complainant's health and that of his family.

The Chairman said that this case had been before the court on former occasions.

Mr. FEGAN had brought him to look at the premises. The nuisance complained of was fearful and insufferable. He did not know how Mr. FEGAN or his family could live so near it.

A servant of Mr. FEGAN's was sworn, and deposed that he knew the soakage from Mr. PATTERSON's privy and dung-pit to flow through the wall into Mr. FEGAN's yard. PATTERSON denied that there was any nuisance in his yard.

COWAN, at Mr. FEGAN's request, was sworn and deposed that PATTERSON had broken down the fence, so as to cause the nuisance to flow into Mr. FEGAN's yard.

The Chairman said that when this case was before the Court on a former occasion, Mr. FEGAN had agreed not to press for a penalty if the nuisance were abated. The nuisance came from the upper demense, and the best plan would be for each to summon until they came to the fountain head.

COWAN--PATTERSON cut a channel so as to send all the nuisance into Mr. FEGAN's. My landlord is here, and he's willing to do everything he can.

COWAN's landlord said that they had summoned all the occupiers of the houses, as far as the upper-most one, but the Court, at the time the cases were heard, decided that they had no jurisdiction.

PATTERSON said that when Mr. FEGAN took the house now occupied by him there was an open sewer there.

The Chairman read the section of the Towns' Improvement Act imposing a penalty of 40l for allowing nuisances such as that complained of....Here were a number of men aggrieved by the flow of nuisance into their premises and the Town Commissioner had taken no steps to relieve them from the annoyance.

Clerk--Mr. FEGAN is a Commissioner also sir, (a laugh). Mr. FEGAN said he had called fifty times on PATTERSON to cause him to abate the nuisance, but without effect....The Court decided upon fining PATTERSON 10s and informed him that as it appeared the nuisance flowed into his premises from those above him, he had an opportunity of bringing a summons against the owners or occupiers of those premises....PATTERSON said it was unjust to fine him...The Court offered him the chance of appealing, by fining him £1, but he declined to avail himself of the privilege, and paid the fine of 10s. Mr. FEGAN did not press the summons against COWAN.

Thomas REILLY v. Cornelius REILLY

This was summons for 1s. 6d., County cess. Defendant did not appear, and a decree was given for the amount claimed.


The summons was brought to recover possession of a house held by defendant from the plaintiff, a weekly tenant, the tenancy having terminated by notice to quit and demand for possession. A decree to possession was given.


The defendant was charged with having broken into complainant's house, in this town, and stolen therefrom a sum of £1 7s. 6d.

Complainant deposed that on Wednesday week the defendant met him, and told him that he had obtained work from Mr. HAGUE, but had not "bit bite, or sup," and requested the loan of a couple of shillings; complainant brought him to his house, and his wife opened a chest in which was a box containing some money, and gave defendant out of that box 2s. 6d.; he was sitting on the edge of the chest at the time; defendant afterwards paid 1s. of this sum, and promised to pay the remainder on last Saturday night, but did not do so; on Sunday evening complainant and his wife went to prayers, and when they returned the "steeple" of their door was "prized," the chest broken open and the money gone.

A young woman deposed that she saw defendant leaning against complainant's door, at or about seven o'clock on Sunday evening; she was going up street at the time; defendant spoke to her; he came a little from the door when he saw her; when she returned in a few minutes afterwards he was leaning against the ditch opposite the house; she did not see him have his hand upon the door when she saw him first.

MORROW, in reply to the Bench, said he seen the door properly hasped at six o'clock; the key of the little box was in the cupboard; the box and door were open when he returned about half past seven o'clock.

Head Constable MOORE stated that on Sunday evening and at his request he searched defendant's house, but could get no money.

MORROW said that ARMSTRONG came up to the house just as the money was missed, and his wife at once clapped her hands, and said, "Oh, ARMSTRONG, keep away from me, for you stole my money--you saw where it was." The money was in the box since harvest last.

The Court did not consider there was sufficient evidence to convict the prisoner, and, on application, the case was postponed for a week.

John M'GINN v. Edward BRADY

This was a charge of stealing an ass. According to the informations of complainant he brought his ass into Cavan, and left it in a yard there, but when he went to remove it, it was gone. He afterwards saw it with BRADY, who refused to give any information as to how it came into his possession.

Two respectable-looking farmers appeared as witnesses for BRADY, and stated that the whole case arose out of a mistake, as one of them lent his ass to the other, and when he came to remove it, he took M'GINN's ass in mistake, it being in the same yard, and afterwards lent it to BRADY.

The Court dismissed the case, but compelled BRADY to pay the costs, as he should have told M'GINN where he got the ass without putting him to expense or trouble.

The Trustees of Loughs Oughter and Gowna Drainage v. Messrs. GREENE and KING; and Same v. --M'CARTHY

This was a summons brought under the 5th and 6th Vic., sec. 134, against the contractors for executing the railway extension between Clones and this town, and against the engineer of the railway company, for injuring the drainage works at Inishbeg.

Mr. REILLY appeared for the complainants and Mr. M'CREAGH for the contractors. MR. M'CARTHY was also present. After the examination of Mr. BRADY, surveyor, who proved to the injury complained of, and produced a map of the works at Inishbeg, the case was postponed for a week, as was a similar complaint brought by a tenant on the lands, named BRADY.


The complaint of Mr. M'MILLAN against the two pedlars name CALLAGHAN and QUINN, reported in our last two impressions, for trading as pedlars without a license, was again called.

Mr. ARMSTRONG appeared for the defendants and protested against the service of the summons on the ground that defendants had left Cavan at the time.

The Court ruled in favour of the objection.

There were only one or two other cases of no public interest.

Carrick-on-Shannon, March 4.

Judge FITZGERALD, in place of Baron DEASY, who as Attorney General, had the prosecutions directed, took his seat in the Crown Court his morning at half-past ten o'clock, and proceeded to open the Commission. When the Grand Jury had been sworn, His Lordship addressed them....There is but one case of a serious character. A person named James MURPHY is in custody on a charge of firing at the Earl of Leitrim, with intent to kill; and the reason I make any observation to you upon the case is because I find marked in the Crown Solicitor's list the observation that in all probability the defence will be insanity. Should such be the case you will have nothing to do with that question; that will have to be disposed of by the judge and the counsel. There are two other cases of homicide , but I don't conceive that either of them are of an aggravated character, as they appear to have arisen--one out of dispute about a fork, and the other out of a dispute about a pipe. It occurred to me that there might be some instances of undetected crime, and I have made close inquiries from those most competent to give me some information on the subject, but I am happy to find there is no foundation for any such fear; and considering that the poor have passed through a season of very considerable privation, I think I may with all sincerity congratulate you on the peaceful state of your county


The Commission was opened on Tuesday morning by the Lord Chief Justice. The Following is a list of Grand Jurors, who were re-sworn:--Matthew E. CORBALLY, George BOMFORD, the Right Honourable Lord KILLEEN, Honourable Gustavus Hamilton RUSSELL, Sir John DILLON, Robert FOWLER, James Noble WALLER, Henry B. CODINGTON, John TISDALL, Samuel GARNETT, Robert C. WADE, James L. NAPER, Christopher A. NICHOLSON, Thomas St. George PEPPER, Hans H. WOODS, Richard CHALONER, Thomas ROTHWELL, John Arthur FARRELL, Patrick John KEARNEY, William Stawell GARNETT, Alexander MONTGOMERY, Thomas GERRARD, and George A. ROTHERAM, Esqrs.

His Lordship said--Gentlemen of the Grand Jury and the County of Meath, if I were to draw an inference of the state of your county simply from an inspection of your calendar, I would say that it speaks very favourably of the tranquility that prevails in your county....With respect to the state of your (illegible) I may say that it is highly satisfactory.


The Hon. Justice HAYES entered the court at ten o'clock on Thursday morning, escorted by the High Sheriff Henry MITCHELL...


Ellen BRADY, apparently a very old woman, was indicted for having caused the death of Mrs. Margaret JOHNSTON and her child, through unskilful treatment as a midwife. Deceased was the wife of a respectable farmer named JOHNSTON, and was taken ill in labour on Sunday, the 23rd of September last, in being her first confinement. The prisoner was immediately in attendance upon her, but she was not delivered until the following Friday, when she gave birth to a still-born child, under the care of Dr. MOOREHEAD. The deceased died during the following week.

In the case for the prosecution it was alleged that death was caused by the grossly unskilful way which the prisoner had attempted to deliver the late Mrs. JOHNSTON of her child, and it was proved that she had at first refused the assistance of a doctor.

MR. M'MECHAN defended the prisoner.

The jury convicted her, but added a recommendation of mercy.

His Lordship sentenced her to four months' imprisonment.

This closed the criminal business of the assizes.


The Hon. Baron FITZGERALD took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock.


This was an action to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The summons and plaint contained also counts in trover, oral slander, and false imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded--first, that he had not committed the acts complained of; secondly, that the acts done by him were not done maliciously or without reasonable and probable cause; and as to the oral slander--which was, that the defendant had said of the plaintiff that she had stolen a calico jacket, his property--that the words were spoken upon occasion which amounted to a privileged one.

It appeared that the plaintiff had been about two years ago a domestic servant in the employment of the defendant, who was a respectable farmer residing near the town of Armagh, and had been since in the habit of visiting the defendant's house. In the month of July or August last his daughter missed out of her possession a calico jacket which had been made for her by a dressmaker in Armagh, and shortly after she missed it her sister observed it on the person of the plaintiff, who then was,and still is, the servant of a Mrs. HANNA, who resides in the neighbourhood of the defendant. The defendant, accompanied by his daughter and demanded the jacket. She refused at first to give it to them, but afterwards, at the instance of her mistress, did so. The defendant subsequently prosecuted the plaintiff at the petty sessions of the city of Armagh, in the month of August last, when the case dismissed by the magistrates.

Damages were laid at £150.

The Jury not being able to agree to a verdict, were discharged at half-past nine o'clock on Friday morning, after being locked up all night.



George Vernon JACKSON, aged 63, described as a merchant, was indicted for that, having been duly adjudged a bankrupt, he had obtained goods, value some thousands, of James WATTS, with intent to defraud.

There were five indictments against the prisoner, to all of which he pleaded guilty.

Mr. Sergeant BALLANTINE, specially retained (with whom was Mr. METCALF) stated the facts of the case to the Recorder, which have already appeared. The prisoner was undefended.

The Recorder sentenced him to eighteen months' hard labour in Halloway House of Correction.

A YOUNG COUPLE--On Shrove Tuesday a young couple belonging to Annagasson were married in Togher Chapel by the Rev. Mr. M'KEONE, whose ages were as follows:--James MATTHEWS, a sailor, aged 16, and Alice BICKERSTAFF, aged 15, daughter of Captain BICKERSTAFF of the schooner Guess.

March 16, 1861

(From A Correspondent)

Magistrates present:--Joseph STORY and John G. TATLOW, Esqrs.


Thomas COWAN of Aughaweely, summoned John FORSTER and William FORSTER, of same place, for sinfully breaking his window on the night of the 30th January last. It would appear from them as of evidence adduced that the parties entertain no violent affection towards each other and complainant considers that defendants have cast a longing eye upon his "little holding," and are anxious to obtain possession of it. On the above night defendants (as was alleged) were returning home from a "neighbour's house," and as they were passing complainant's house, his dog chose to bark either in defiance of his master's foes, or from the usual canine propensity for that musical amusement.--Wm. Forster, not relishing a dose of "bark" at that particular period, and not having the fear of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals before his eyes, searched for, found, and flung a "pebble" at the canine favourite of Mr. COWAN; but that intelligent quadrup, having no faith in the virtue of stones, evaded the missile, which passed harmlessly over him, and struck against his master's window, "smashing" two pieces of glass, and "flittherin' into smithereens" the wooden sash in which the crystal was encased,the crash causing a great consternation amongst sundry members of the feathered tribe, who were tranquilly slumbering on a perch near the fractured window, and who, dreading personal injury through the agency of further missiles, sought refuge upon the "dresser," to the great injury of the "crockery," and total destruction of "a darlin' dish, worth 1s. 10d.," and an "ornament," which were thereon. Although it was alleged that these catastrophes had been caused through the agency of John FORSTER, it appeared that he had been ill for three days before and after their occurrence. A termination of the evidence on both sides, the Court dismissed the case, and bound the parties over to be of good and peaceable behaviour towards each other and all her Majesty's lieges for the space of 12 months.


Peter SMITH, of Kilmore, processed John LEDDY, of Corr, for £1 15s. for grazing defendant's cattle and supporting himself at sundry times during last summer. Defendant did not appear, but his son applied for an adjournment of the case, which the Court declined to grant, and proceeded to investigate the case, item by item--one item of 3s., for supporting defendant's horse, being of the number.

Mr. STORY--What did you give him?
Mr. STORY--What?--"Tay?"
Mr. STORY--You treated him well.
Plaintiff--He was never made another of.
Mr. STORY--So I think, when you gave his horse tea, treated himself to tea, and supplied his men with the same exhilarating beverage. Nothwithstanding your extraordinary kindness, we will give you a decree for the full amount, minus 5s.
Plaintiff--Won't I get my costs?
Mr. STORY--If that's all you will ever lose by going to law, you will be very safe.


Catherine COMISKY, of Wateraughy, summoned Peter NEILL for £1 4s., wages. It appeared by the girl's own statement that this sum will not be due to her until May next, and that she left defendant's service in consequence of his wife having accused her of stealing eggs. The Court dismissed the case, and ordered plaintiff to return to her work.


Sub-Constable John SMITH summoned John M'CLEAN and John REILLY for having been drunk on the 5th instant. Defendants did not appear, but a friend excused their non-attendance, on the ground that they had both got married, and this was the day for "dragging home" the bride. The newly made Benedicks were fined 1s. each, with costs.

Constable DONOGHOE summoned Michael MURPHY for having been drunk on the last fair night of Ballinagh.

MR. TATLOW--Has he ever been here before?
Constable STEELE--Yes; he's a notorious character.
Fined 5s. and costs.

A number of other police cases were then gone late, and the Court adjourned to the 21st inst.


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

Thomas SORAHAN, of Denbawn, summoned Edwd. M'EVOY for, wilfully injuring his fence, and stated that the fence which was injured surrounds a field adjoining defendant's land, and at a considerable distance from his own residence; he had, at great trouble, planted it with quicks and was anxious to keep it in good order, as defendant's cattle were continually trespassing; on the day named in the summons he went to repair the fence; defendant was working in his own field and asked him what he was doing, and on being told, said he would not allow complainant to repair the fence, came over to where he was working, and with a spade cut and damaged the quicks, and threw them into the "gripe," where they still be, using at the same time, abusive and threatening language towards complainant, who was obliged to leave his work, and return home; defendant has no right to, and never claimed the fence injured by him; complainant, in consequence of defendant's threats towards him on several occasions, is apprehensive that he will do him some serious injury.

Defendant denied having used threats towards complainant, but made no defense to the other charge.

The Court, after severely reprimanding him, ordered him to pay a fine of 1s. and costs, with 9s. compensation, and told complainant that in case of further injury, or if still apprehensive of defendant, he could summon him, and have him bound over to keep the peace.

John MAGGETT summoned Patrick SORAHAN, his hired servant, for having unlawfully left his employment.

Complainant's son stated that his father could not attend, but he was present when defendant was hired. The agreement was that defendant was to received 6d. a day and his diet for one year. That time has not yet expired, but defendant went away on Thursday, and did not since return to his work.

Defendant said his agreement with complainant was 6d. a day and his diet, but he was to be free to leave at any time, on giving four days' previous notice to complainant. However, he had no wish to leave complainant's service, and was "only on a visit for a few days."

The Court did not consider his version of the agreement a probable one, and ordered him to return to his work, which he consented to do.

Constable SHEALDS summoned Bridget M'CABE for having been drunk in the streets of this town on the 4th of January. She had promised to appear on the following Court day, but remained out of Cavan until last week. She was sentenced to 48 hours' imprisonment.

James BRADY, of Shantmon, summoned Edwd. FINNEGAN, of same place, for having on the 10th of October, 1860, wilfully and (illegible) cut, damaged, and injured complainant's pass. The case was before the Court in October lst, when it was referred to Mr. Thomas REILLY, Butlersbridge, and Mr. George GRAHAM, Clonervy, but these gentlemen refused to act as arbitrators. Some witnesses were examined, and a letter from W. A. MOORE, Esq., J.P., read, after which the Court stated that they were of opinion BRADY had a right to the pass, and cautioned FINNEGAN against meddling with it, but at the same time they considered it was question which the parties should have left to the decision of their agent. BRADY said that he did not want to prevent FINNEGAN or any of the tenants using the pass, but merely wished to protect himself, and both left Court apparently satisfied.

Erne Drainage v. William M'CARTAN

This case, postponed from last Court day, was again called. The summons charged that "defendant to wit on the 31st of December 1860, did counsel and abet Henry GREEN, Charles KING, and their workmen to stop up certain water cuts or drains which were theretofore made for the purpose of drainage, and thereby the lands of Innishbeg aforesaid were damaged and injured, and which lands had been improved by drainage". The summons against Messrs. GREEN and KING, also postponed from last Court day, charged that defendants and their workmen committed the injury "counselled and abetted" by Mr. M'CARTAN.

Mr. Thomas REILLY, secretary to the Trustees, appeared to prove the charges.

Mr. BOYD, Solicitor to the Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway Company, and Mr. Samuel N. KNIPE, appeared for the defendants.

It appeared from the statements of Mr. REILLY and the evidence of Mr. James BRADY, surveyor, who produced a map of the land, that by stopping the drains or water cuts for the purposes of their line of railway, the defendants had flooded a portion of the lands reclaimed by the drainage works; and it was contended that the Court had power to investigate and punish the defendants....After much discussion, Mr. REILLY proposed that as he would be in Dublin on Friday, Mr. BOYD could meet him there, and satisfy him as this fact, and if it was so he (Mr. REILLY) would not press the cases.

This was agreed to, and both cases were adjourned for a week. William BRADY v. Same

This was another charge to the same effect, complainant being the tenant of the portion of the lands of Innishbeg injured and flooded by the railway works.

Mr. John AMRSTRONG appeared for the complainant.--After much controversy this case terminated by Mr. BOYD stating, on the part of the company, that he would visit the lands, and if the injury were pointed out to him, engage that complainant should be remunerated....

The few other cases for hearing were of no public interest.


On the 1st instant, the wife of Benjamin S. ADAMS, Esq., of Shinan House, county Cavan, of a daughter.

March 7, at Lisbeg, Ballygawley, the wife of George Vesey STEWART, Esq., of a son.

February 2, at Ecclesgreen, Fintona, co. Tyrone, Mrs. HAMILTON, of three sons.


March 1, at Maberaculmoney, William GIBSON, Esq., of Millbrook Lodge, Kesh, to Catherine, eldest daughter of Acheson BLACK, Esq., Grave Valley, Enniskillen.

On March 9, at St. Mary's Church, Clonmel, by the Rev. Henry FRY, Mr. James BLAKELY, compositor, to Sarah, eldest daughter of Mr. John KNEESHAW, C.E., late of Scarborough, Yorkshire, England.


On the 13th instant, in Dublin, Eliza Jane Margaret KANE, the only daughter of the late Joseph KANE, Esq., of Lower Baggot-street, Dublin, and Ardgenny, county Monaghan, aged 20 years.


Navan, March 12--These sessions were held before James N. WALLER, Esq., J.P., D.L., Allenstown House, and J. C. METGE, Esq., Sion.

ATTACKING A DWELLING HOUSE AND ITS INMATES BY NIGHT.--This was a case brought forward on the part of the Crown against three men name Charles RAFFERTY, Bryan CAROLAN, and Patrick PIGOTT, who were charged with attacking the house of one Garret REILLY, and violently assaulting his wife and son. The evidence of Garret REILLY, an old man, and that of his daughter, went to show that on Sunday night, the 3rd instant, a party of men came to the house and broke open the door; that they endevoured to drag out REILLY's son and murder him; the wife of Reilly got out of bed, when she received a violent box on the nose from one of the party, and bled for some length of time; they got hold of the son, Hugh REILLY, to drag him out. Before they entered the house one of the party was heard to say that they would burn the house if they were not admitted. Such was the substance of the evidence of the father and daughter.

Hugh REILLY, the son, was next examined and stated that as he was in the act of going to bed on the night in question he heard some voices outside, as if those of drunken men who were going home; that they merely came to the door for a light for their pipe; that they came into the house and merely jostled him about, having neither sticks nor any other weapon.

The witness was asked by Mr. WALLER whether he did not state, when making his informations to Mr. METGE verbally, that the men were not drunk? He replied that he did not; but Mr. METGE emphatically stated that he did so.

In reply to Head-constable HYLAND, the witness admitted that he had met all the defendants on that morning to compromise the matter, as he wished to have nothing to do with the case any further.

Head-constable HYLAND stated that some time ago a brother of Hugh Reilly's made a complaint to the police of being attacked on the road.

Mr. SULLIVAN, who ably conducted the defence, next examined three farmers, who spoke rather favourably of the general character of the accused parties.

Mr. WALLER stated that they should be fined 10s. each, with costs, or be sent to Trim gaol for one month. He advised them to be very particular in their conduct for the future; for should any charge of a similar nature be brought against them they would be dealt with more rigourously. They would order the sum of five shillings each, as expenses, to old Reilly and his daughter; but Hugh Reilly, the son, should not receive a penny of expenses.

The other cases heard were of no public interest, and the Court rose at two o'clock.


The Board of Guardians of this union held their usual weekly meeting on Tuesday.....

Previous to entering upon the other business of the meeting, the Master reminded the Board that the case of the child CAMPBELL, postponed from last meeting, might be gone into, as the Rev. Mr. CARSON, the Presbyterian Chaplain, and the Rev. Mr. MULVANY, Roman Catholic Chaplain, were in attendance, and had statements to make relative to the case.

Chairman--How does it come before us to-day?
Clerk--The child was sent here from the gaol.
Chairman--Has there been any communication from the Commissioner of the subject?
Clerk--No, sir.
Chairman--(To Mr. BURROWES)--The mother of the child was a Presbyterian, and it is said she expressed a wish to have the child reared a Roman Catholic.

Mr. LAMB--And not only expressed that wish, but had the child baptised by a Catholic priest.

The Chairman read the section of the Poor Law act, regulating that legitimate pauper children should be reared in the religion of the parents or surviving parent, and illegitimate children in the religion of the mother.

Mr. REILLY said the father of the child in question was a Roman Catholic, and the child had been baptised in that religion.

Mr. BURROWES considered it would be well to hear what the Rev. M. CARSON and the Rev. Mr. MULVANY had to say.

Mr. LAMB said that in the case of Rose KEEGAN, a Roman Catholic, who wished her illegitimate child to be baptised and registered a Protestant, the Poor Law Commissioner had decided that the wish of the mother was to be complied with.

Chairman--But that gives us no right to interfere with the religion of the child.
Mr. LAMB--Not against the wish of the mother.
Mr. BURROWES--If the wish of the mother is not clearly ascertained, I think we should be guided by the law.
Chairman--Let us hear what Mr. CARSON and Mr. MULVANY have to say.

The Rev. Mr. CARSON said he had known the mother of the child for a long period; he thought he knew her from the time she came to the Workhouse. She was reared as a Presbyterian in the Workhouse; but, unfortunately, she became bad, and led an immoral and abandoned life, but always remained a Presbyterian. She died in the gaol on the 2nd of March. She had been eight or ten months in gaol, as far as he could remember. During that period she never said, or indicated in any manner, that she wished her child to be reared in a religion different from that which she herself professed. He certainly never spoke to her on the subject, as he did not deem it necessary to do so. The child was born in or about Killeshandra, and the mother was sent to the gaol a prisoner from the neighbourhood, for robbing some man. He wished to state, as briefly as possible, his opinion of the law of the case, and he was very sorry that the Board had any trouble in the matter. On reading the CAVAN OBSERVER of Saturday last, he was surprised to see in the report of the proceedings at the last meeting of the Board, that the Rev. Mr. MULVANY was reported to have said that he knew the father of the child to be a Roman Catholic, and that the mother, on her death-bed, told him that she wished to have the child reared a Roman Catholic.

Rev. Mr. MULVANY--I never said any such thing.

The Rev. Mr. Carson said he had been now for eleven years chaplain to the gaol and, through the kindness of the Board, to the Workhouse. During that period he had never interfered with the flock of another clergyman. ...He therefore, wished to ask Mr. Mulvany how it was that he formed this opinion--how or when the woman told him that she wished to have her child reared a Roman Catholic? How he came to interfere with her? If Mr. Mulvany had been meddling with those not under his charge, he (Rev. Mr. Carson) considered that he was not acting in accordance with the law.

Mr. REILLY--Mr. Mulvany has denied that he said so.

Rev. Mr. Carson said that, even if the child had been baptised by a priest, that would not fix the religion in which it should be reared. He had known Presbyterians who had their children baptised by clergymen of the Established Church, and yet had them reared Presbyterians. He did not care by whom the child was baptised. The baptism would not fix the religion in which it was to be reared.

Rev. Mr. Mulvany--That's a question for the Guardians, and not for you. Rev. Mr. Carson--It is said that the father of child is a Roman Catholic. The child is illegitimate and the father has no legal standing here. If Mr. Mulvany knows him, let the father come here, and claim his child, and not have it a burden upon you.

Mr. Smith--Hear him.

Rev. Mr. Carson--As I said before, the woman was always a Presbyterian. She was, unfortunately, no ornament to any religion; but she was the sole parent of the child. It has pleased the Lord to take her away, leaving her child as a legacy to you, and it is for you to say in what religion it shall be reared. I have now only to ask Mr. Mulvany his authority for making the statement he did.

The Rev. Mr. Mulvany handed the Chairman the certificate of the child's baptism. It was to the effect that William, the illegitimate child of Patrick M'SAWLEY and June CAMPBELL, was baptised in the Roman Catholic chapel, Killeshanrdra, on the 20th of February, 1860, by the Rev. Mr. REILLY, P.P.

The Chairman said the woman had been about six months in gaol. (Mr. Carson--I think she was more.)

(A great deal of discussion, argument and accusation followed).

Mr. Reilly proposed, and Mr. Fegan seconded, that the particulars of the case should be submitted to the Poor Law Commissioner.

The resolution was carried unanimously.

Chairman--How is the statement to be made out? Mr. Burrowes suggested that the Medical Officer of the gaol should certify as to the state of the woman's mind for some days before her death, and the two chaplains could make out their own statements, and offer them through the Clerk.

This was agreed to, and the chaplains having been sent for, and informed of the decision of the Board, the matter then dropped.


(Before Hon. Baron FITZGERALD)


Samuel M'KEOWN, Edward MURPHY, Robert MAJOR, William STEENSON, Richard MURPHY, Edward ABRAHAM, Sinnamon HUGHES, James TURKINGTON, Alexander MURPHY, Samuel M'AULEY, Edward MURPHY, William CASSELLS (Derrymacash); Wm. CASSELLS (Ballinarry); John M'KEOWN, Christopher MURPHY; Richard MURPHY, Alexander MURPHY, sen., William Abraham, Stephenson TURKINGTON, Samuel RUDDELL, William PATTERSON, Samuel PICKERING, Edward CASSELS, Joseph HADDOCK, William CASSELLS (Ballinahone), were arraigned for having on the 12 July, 1860, at Derrymacash, unlawfully assembled, and having firearms, flags, and symbols, calculated to provoke to a breach of the peace. On a second count they were charged with a riot at the same time and place.


William WRIGHT, who had been acquitted last evening of the charge of having fired at Charles M'CANN, with intent to kill, was put forward, and the Crown not objecting, he was discharged on his own recognizance to appear any time when called on after ten days' notice.

The long panel was then called over by Leonard DOBBIN, Esq., junior, and a jury about to be sworn, when

MR. M'MECHAN challenged James WYNNE for cause--that cause being, that he had, with others, entered into a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice by removing from the jury lists the names of Conservatives as they are called, and getting on those same lists Roman Catholics, with a special reference to the Derrymacash trials.

Mr. WYNNE--My lord, I distinctly deny such an accusation.
His Lordship--Mr. M'MECHAN, you have made a very serious charge, and I am prepared to try it when you have reduced it to proper form.

After consulting for some time with the other counsel for the prisoner, Mr. M'MECHAN said he would withdraw the charge, not that he was afraid to try it, but in deference to his friends' suggestion.


Samuel M'KEOWN, Edward MURPHY, Robert MAJOR, Richard MURPHY, Edward ABRAHAM, , James TURKINGTON, Alexander MURPHY, jun., William CASSELLS (Derrymacash); Christopher MURPHY; Richard MURPHY, William Abraham, Stephenson TURKINGTON, Samuel RUDDELL, William CASSELLS (Ballynahone), Samuel PICKERING, Edward CASSELS, William CASSELLS were indicted for having unlawfully assembled at Derrymacash on the 12th of July, 1860. A second count charged them with riot.

The prisoners pleaded not guilty.

Counsel for the prosecution--The Attorney General and Solicitor-General (special); Sir Thomas STAPLES, Bart.; Messrs. M'DONNEL, Q.C., CRAWFORD, Q.C., DIX, and M'BLAIN.

Counsel for the prisoners--Messrs. BARKER, MORRIS and Carleton.

The attorney-General stated the case for the prosecution. Head Constable M'CARRON examined by the Solicitor General--I was stationed at Lurgan on the 12th of July last; I saw a party coming in from the direction of Portadown, between two and three o'clock; they came on in large numbers, with fifes and drums; they walked into the town; some arm-in-arm, some four and six together, and two; I counted twenty-eight drums, and I believe the same number of fifes; (Mr. M'MECHAM objected to the witness giving his belief)--They were playing the drums and fifes through the town; some boys had orange ribbons, and others had orange (illegible); I know Christopher MURPHY (identified); I saw him there that day playing a fife with the party from Portadown; I know Richard MURPHY (identified); I saw him beating a drum with the same party; there were some two or three other drumming parties entered Lurgan that day; I computed them between five and six thousand; they remained in Lurgan till four or five o'clock, parading the streets with music; I heard shots fired, but I could not say it was from any of those parties; they might have been fired from yards; I saw a large party leaving the town, but I cannot say any of the prisoners were in it then; I think the proceedings were calculated to promote animosity between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Mr. M'MECHAN objected to this question, and requested his lordship to take a note of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'MECHAN--I am a Roman Catholic, from the county Donegal, but am not descended from an ancient chieftain of Donegal; the drumming excited no curiosity in my mind, nor never did; I consider myself a rational Roman Catholic...

Several other witnesses were examined, but the foregoing evidence involves the principal details.

The Attorney-General said that three of the prisoners, namely, Richard MURPHY, Alexander MURPHY, jun., and Edward ABRAHAM--were not identified by any of the witnesses.

Baron FITZGERALD directed the jury to acquit these three men. This was done, and the parties discharged from custody.

Mr. M'MECHAN called for the production of John HEYBURNE, whose name was on the back of the bill as a witness. The crown counsel assented.

John HEYBURNE was examined by Mr. M'MECHAN--Was near Walsh's corner on the 12th July; saw MURPHY shot; I know Samuel TATE; I cannot say whether it was he that fired the shot.

Mr. M'MECHAN submitted that according to the law laid down in the former case, the persons at the bar ought to have been indicted for the more aggravated offence, it at all. The misdemeanour, in fact, merged into the greater offence, and his lordship should direct an acquittal.

His lordship said he would not adopt that course.

Mr. M'MECHAN having intimated that he did not intend to argue the point at present, proceeded to address the jury for the prisoners. HE was there, he said, nominally defending these men, but really defending public liberty in Ireland....He asserted that the sole object of the Protestant party was to get home, but that they were obliged to defend themselves against an organized attack at Rooney's corner, which was to be followed up by another attack at Wolf's Island.

The jury retired at five o'clock to consider their verdict.


At half-past nine o'clock his Lordship returned to court, and the jury, who had been closeted in this case, came out and handed in their verdict, finding Christopher MURPHY, Edward MURPHY, Samuel M'KEOWN, Robert MAJOR, James TURKINGTON, William CASSELLS (Derrymacash), William CASSELLS (Ballinahone), Edward ABRAHAM, Samuel PICKERING, and Edward CASSELLS, guilty of illegal assembly and riot; Wm. STEPHENSON and Stephenson TURKINGTON, guilty of illegal assembly, and not guilty of riot; Samuel RUDDELL, Richard MURPHY, and William CASSELLS (Gravehole), not guilty on both counts.


The HUMPHREYS were admitted to bail, to appear and take their trial at next assizes if called on. Twenty other persons concerned in the Derrymacash affair were similarly disposed.

On Monday last his lordship sentenced Robert MAJOR, Samuel M'KEOWN and Edward CASSELS to three month's imprisonment each; Christopher MURPHY, Samuel PICKERING, William CASSELS of Derrymacash; William CASSELS, of Ballinary; Edward MURPHY, Wm. ABRAHAM, and James TURKINGTON, three months' imprisonment each; the remaining three--STEVENSON, TURKINGTON and STEENSON--to six weeks' imprisonment, and a fine of £5 each, or in default a further imprisonment of three weeks each. He afterwards sentenced Samuel TATE (previously convicted of the manslaughter of MURPHY), to fifteen months' imprisonment from the date of his committal.


Sligo, Friday,--The trial of Mathew PHIBBS charged with having murdered Mr. and Mrs. CALLAGHAN, and their servant, MOONEY, at Ballymote, on the night of the 6th or morning of the 7th January last, having been fixed for this morning, from an early hour the approaches leading to the court-house were crowded, and it was with difficulty the police were able to keep a passage clear for pedestrians. About nine o'clock PHIBBS was brought from the jail to the court-house, and at half-past nine o'clock Judge FITZGERALD took his seat in the crown court, and PHIBBS was put forward in the dock. The prisoner looked flushed. A jury having been sworn,

Mr. Walter BURKE, Q.C., (with whom was Mr. CONCANON and Mr. CARLETON) stated the case for the crown. After going through all the evidence given at the corner's inquest at Ballymore, the learned gentleman concluded an able address, which occupied two hours in the delivery.

Edward HUNT, Luke M'HUGH, Constable GARLAND, Dr. LONGHEAD, Wm. MORRISON, and other witnesses, were examined for the crown, and cross-examined by Mr. SIDNEY, on the part of the prisoner. Their evidence was similar to that given at the inquest. The principal evidence since arrived at is that John KEARNS, who was examined to-day, and deposed that he was in Flaherty's public house, which is between Sligo and Riverstown, the day the prisoner was there, and before his arrest; witness walked after him and saw him pull out some papers and wad them up, and throw them on the road; there was blood on them, and witness kicked them before him; prisoner went on to Mr. O'HARA's gate (which is nearer to Sligo), and pulled out more papers and threw them inside a ditch; in two or three days after he picked up the papers which were thrown over the ditch.

These papers have been given in evidence in forming portions of letters belonging to Mr. CALLAGHAN.

The entire evidence having been gone through, his Lordship charged the Jury, who at 12 o'clock on Staturday night stated there was no likelihood of their agreeing. They were accordingly discharged, and the case postponed to next Assizes.

March 23, 1861

DEATH OF AN EMINENT IRISHMAN ABROAD--August 15th, at Porta Rico, West Indies, Major Patrick Murray DELAMERE, of the Spanish service, and son of the late esteemed Patrick DELAMERE, Esq., of Killen, county Westmeath. He entered the service of her Most Catholic Majesty of Spain, in 1835, under Lieutenant-General De Lacy EVANS. He married in 1813, Elisea Vinyalsey BARGES, daughter by a former marriage of Madame O'DONNELL, now the wife of Marshal Leopold O'DONNELL, late Minister of War, and by her he had one son, Lieutenant Leopold Perdre DELAMERE, who is attached to the staff of the Spanish army.--New York Journal.



Before William BABINGTON, Esq., J.P., Chairman; William HUMPHRYS, Esq., J.P., D.L.; and William Murray HICKSON, Esq., R.M.

An affidavit to bail an insolvent debtor was made by George HAMILL and J. M'GAHAN, in the usual manner.


A case of Mary FLYNN v. Phillips REILLY having been called,

An intelligent looking youth applied for a postponement on the part of Phillip REILLY.
Chairman--Are you his son?
Applicant--No, Sir; I'm a boy of his.
Chairman--Why can't he attend?
Applicant--His woman was confined this morning.
Clerk--And are not you his acting man?
Mr. John ARMSTRONG--Not on that occasion, surely! (laughter).
Clerk--Didn't you hire the girl?
Applicant--I did.
The Chairman having been informed that the plaintiff had come a considerable distance, said he would give her very full costs, if she proved her case on next Court day, and directed the "boy" to be sworn.

The oath having been administered,

Constable SHEALDS said the "boy" had tried to evade kissing the book, which the latter indignantly denied.
Chairman--Was Phillip REILLY's wife confined today?
Boy--She was dangerously ill.
Mr. ARMSTRONG--You don't mean to say she'd be dangerously ill if she was "in the way of it."
Boy--It was comin' on her.
Mr. Armstrong--I don't think you were ever "in the way of it" yourself by the way you talk--were you?
Boy--I wasn't (laughter).
The Chairman said he would postpone the case for a week. Mr. Armstrong (to the "boy")--Run home now, and take care you don't get "in the way of it;" don't you get the complaint, for it's very taking (laughter).


This was a charge of robbery. The defendant did not appear, but the summons server deposed that he served the summons at his residence in Bridge-street on the 14th instant, his wife being in the house at the time.

Mr. James Armstrong appeared for the complainant, and stated the case. On the 2nd of March Patrick and Farrell CONARTY, two butchers, residing some distance from Cavan, were in this town on business.--They sold some meat to the defendant, who keeps a public house and lodging house in Bridge-street.--Farrell had some drink there, and in the course of the day became a little tipsy. In the evening, the weather being wet and stormy, the brothers determined not to go home that night, and went to M'LENNON's to get a bed. M'LENNON and his wife were present when they asked could they have a bed. She said they could. They asked the charge for a bed, and she told them it was 6d. Patrick CONARTY gave her the 6d. He had then in his purse--a chequered one--ten guineas, and M'LENNON must have seen the purse. They were shown to their bed; but Patrick CONARTY, knowing his brother to be tipsy, and seeing eight or nine navvies in the room, did not deem it prudent to go to bed. Farrell went to bed, but Patrick sat up until about three o'clock the next morning, when he dozed for a second or two. He could not have dozed longer when he was startled by finding a hand in his pocket. He at once awoke and found M'LENNON pulling his hand out of his pocket; and bringing his purse, in which were the ten guineas, with him. He asked M'LENNON for the purse, but instead of giving it to him, M'LENNON caught him by the neck, and turned him out of the house. He waited about the house until seven o'clock, when he went in and again asked M'LENNON for his money, but M'LENNON denied having taken it. HE then went to the police, who told him to swear informations before a magistrate, and he accordingly went to Mr. BABINGTON; but thinking that if he swore informations, he would only punish M'LENNON without recovering his money, he hesitated about doing so, in the hope that M'LENNON might be induced to give up the money.

Patrick CONARTY was then sworn, and proceeded to give evidence in accordance with the above statement, when,

MR. HICKSON suggested that it would be well to send for M'LENNON, in order that he might hear the charge against him.

The Clerk said that M'LENNON's wife was also charged, but that CONARTY did not know her baptismal name.

A policeman was then sent for M'LENNON and his wife, the case standing over in the interim, and after some time M'LENNON's wife came upon the table, and said she hoped the Court would postpone the case, as her husband was not at home. He had been away since Wednesday, trying to get witnesses to attend at the Quarter Sessions, in the charge of robbery against him to be tried at that court, and he had not seen the summons in this case.

The Chairman thought it right to say that when CONARTY came to him on the morning after the robbery, he did not say anything about finding M'LENNON's hand in his pocket. He (Chairman) directed the Head Constable to make inquiries, and to go to M'LENNON's house, and the result was that he did not think CONARTY had made out a sufficient case for him to grant informations or a warrant. CONARTY came to him afterwards, and he told him that he might take a summons out against M'LENNON.

Mr. TULLY said he knew M'LENNON's wife to be the daughter of an extremely honest man.

Chairman--CONARTY charged her also when he came to me first.

Mr. HICKSON said that if the case went to a jury, and Mr. BABINGTON were called, the statement he had just made would weaken CONARTY's case.

The Court, after some further remarks, postponed the case for a week.

Mary Anne KIELY v. Charles QUEALE

This is a civil bill process for 11s. 4d., balance of 3l. 11s. 4d., goods sold and delivered.

A young man named SMITH, clerk to Mrs. KEILY, the plaintiff, stated that the amount claimed was for bread sold to Mr. QUEALE, between the 8th of September and 18th of October, 1861. Six or seven messengers came for the bread, and on some occasions they might have come fifteen times in one day. Mr. QUEALE had paid all but the balance now sought to be recovered.

Mr. QUEALE handed up a receipt for 3l. 10s. 10d., signed by SMITH on the 10th of October, and said he only owed a sum of 10d. to plaintiff.

SMITH, having examined the receipt, said the 10s. was not in his handwriting, and the receipt was not as he had given it. Mr. QUEALE said he had the receipt for the last six months.

SMITH said the last receipt he gave Mr. QUEALE was for 3l. Mrs. KEILY at that time said she would give no more bread except entered in a pass-book, and gave Mr. QUEALE one, but he had go no bread since.

Their Worships again examined the receipt, and asked SMITH if he noticed certain erasures and marks in it, near the disputed item.

SMITH, having held the receipt as directed, said he did, and that it had been tampered with since he gave it.

Mr. QUEALE said he had got several receipts from SMITH with scratches and marks in the same manner.

The Chairman said they were clearly of opinion the receipt had been tampered with; they did not say by whom; but considered it a fraudulent transaction, and would give a decree for 11s. 4d. with 5s. costs.

Mr. QUEALE said he would appeal.

The Chairman directed the Clerk to impound the receipt in case of an appeal being entered.

James SHEALDS v. Michael BRADY

The complainant in this case is a farmer, an elderly man of respectable appearance. The defendant was his hired servant, and there was two charges against him--one for having left complainant's service, and the other for having assaulted him. The defendant did not appear, but it was proved that he had been in court a short time before the case was called, and that the summons was served at his brother's residence. The brother afterwards came into court, and admitted that his house was defendant's usual place of residence when out of employment, and that he had slept there ever night since he left complainant's service.

Complainant's statement was to the effect that he hired defendant at 4l. 2s. 6d.for the half year, which has not yet expired, and out of the sum he had given him 2l. 2s. 6d.; defendant was absent from his house on the night of the 9th instant; on the following day he was thrashing in the barn, and complainant pointed out to him some of the straw which was not properly handled; defendant struck him with the hand--(illegible), knocking off the skin of his arm from the wrist to the elbow, and, notwithstanding his cry for mercy, knocked him down, kicked him, and otherwise ill-treated him; he escaped from the barn, but defendant followed him to the house, and but for the interference of a neighbour, would have killed him; defendant went away that day, and has not since returned.

The Court ordered that for unlawfully leaving complainant's service defendant should forfeit all his wages and for the assault be imprisoned for one month in Cavan Gaol.

Clerk--He has drawn all his wages up to the present.

Chairman--Then we discharge him from complainant's service, and sentence him to a month's imprisonment.

Constable HEUSTON v. James and Hugh REILLY

Constable HEUSTON deposed that on the night of the 16th instant, he was on duty in Ballyhaise, when he saw the defendants (who are brothers) fighting with some others; James REILLY had his coat off; he arrested him, when REILLY "collared" him, tore his coat, knocked him down twice, and assaulted him several times; and the other defendant tried to effect a rescue.

A Sub-Constable deposed that when constable HEUSTON arrested James REILLY, Hugh REILLY tried to rescue him, and when HEUSTON was knocked down by James REILLY, Hugh drew a whip from under his coat, and was about to strike him as he lay on the ground; witness tried to get the whip, when a third man who was among the crowd, drew the whip from them; when the prisoners were brought to the barracks, witness described the man who had take away the whip, and some of the other constables followed him, and brought him back with the whip (produced), and Mr. HUMPHREYS dealt with him on yesterday (Sunday).

Mr. HUMPHREYS--There was nothing against him except that REILLY had given him the whip.

The prisoners pleaded guilty, and one of them said they had not tasted whiskey during the last seven years; on the day of the assault he got himself bled; and a cousin of theirs, who was going to England, brought them into Mr. PRUNTY's, Ballyhaise, where they had some drink, and could remember nothing about the assault.

Constable HEUSTON, in reply to the Chairman, said the prisoners were under the influence of drink when they committed the assault. He knew nothing against them previously, and only saw them about Ballyhaise during the last two months. He considered he owed his life to the Sub-Constable's interference with Hugh REILLY.

James REILLY said himself and his brother were both married, and had children. He hoped the Court would deal lightly with them.

The Chairman said that but for the previous good character of the prisoners, and the manner in which they had acknowledged their offence, the Court would be disposed to send them for trial. The assault was a most wanton and violent one, and it might have ended in murder. It was aggravated in the eye of the law by having been committed on the police, whose duty it was to protect the public peace. The sentence of the Court was--that they should each be imprisoned for one month.

The prisoners said their children (six) would be obliged to go to the Workhouse in case they were sent to prison, and prayed that a fine might be imposed, instead of imprisonment, but the Court refused to comply with the request.

The other cases heard were of a trifling character.


March - "the month of many weathers"--has been this year more than usually variable and tempestuous. During the past week we have been favoured with almost every variety of weather--hail, rain, sleet, snow, storm, and sunshine, and all often within the course of an hour. During yesterday there were some signs of an improvement, but too vague to be depended on.--Agricultural operations are at a stand-still, and a large number of farm labourers are, in consequence, unable to procure work.

The friends and parishioners of the late Rev. Wm. THOMSON, LL.D., curate of Magheross for nineteen years, have erected two very handsome stained-glass windows in the Church of Carrickmacross, as a memorial of esteem and affection.

During the nine months past, ending 1st February, Irish servant girls of Cincinnati have sent their parents and friends in Europe the sum of 64,900 dollars.

The remittances vary in size, ranging from 5 dollars to 25 dollars, more generally the former than the latter.

The marriage of Baron DEASY with Miss O'CONNOR, of Dublin, is fixed for the 2d proximo--Cork Herald.

INGENIOUS CONSTRUCTION--Mr. Richard HURLEY, of this town, who has earned a high and wide reputation as a cutter and maker of surgical instruments, has recently completed a very ingenious article. It is an artificial arm, of a novel structure, to be fastened on the short stump at the shoulder. The most curious part of it is the elbow, which works like the natural articulation itself. The wearer can write, carry loads, with the artificial arm, and do most of the things an arm is needed for.-- Enniskillen Reporter.


On the 5th inst., in the Presbyterian Church, Carrigallen, by the Rev. J. CARSON, Cavan, assisted by the Rev. James ANDERSON (Pastor Loci), the Rev. Samuel PATRICK, Drumkeeran, to Frances Elizabeth, daughter of John FARIS, Esq., Dublin, and niece of Samuel FARIS, Esq., Carrigallen.

On Thursday, the 14th inst., in Templeport Church, Mr. John M'DOWALL, to Miss Kate TAGGART.


A List of Applications received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking EXCISE LICENSES, for the Sale of Beer, Spirits, .....

On Friday, the 20th day of March, 1861, immediately after the Grand Jury shall have been Sworn:--

No. 1. M'CAFFREY, Philip, Ballyconnell, Parish of Tomregan, and Barony of Tullyhaw.
No. 2. M'CAFFREY, Anne, Main-street, Ballyconnell, Parish of Tomregan, and Barony of Tullyhaw.

Gustavus Tuite DALTON, Clerk of the Peace, County Cavan
Cavan, 9th March, 1861

On Monday, the 1st day of April, 1861

No. 1. CLARKEN, Philip, Church-street, Cootehill, Parish of Drumgoon, and Barony of Tullygarvey.
No. 2. TIMMIN, Philip, Tullyvin, Parish of Killeshandra, and Barony of Tullygarvey.

Gustavus Tuite DALTON, Clerk of the Peace, County Cavan
Cavan,12th March, 1861

(Before Judge Fitzgerald.)


James GRIFFIN, a very respectable-looking young man, about eighteen years of age, was indicted for stealing a letter containing money from the post-office at Oranmore, on the 19th of August last.

Mr. MORRIS for the prisoner pleaded guilty, and in mitigation of punishment stated the youth and previous good character of the prisoner, who was a son of the postmaster at Oranmore, whose own conduct, extending over a period of twenty years, during which he had been in the service of the Post-office authorities, and given them perfect satisfaction. The learned counsel also urged upon the consideration of the Court the fact that the prisoner had already been seven months in gaol.

The prisoner was ordered to be removed. Sentence deferred.

Michael SULLIVAN and another were indicted for wilfully setting fire to a boat, the property of the Right Hon. Lord CAMPBELL and others, at Rossmeek.

Mr. BUCHANAN defenced the prisoner.

The charge was that the prisoner had got a stick of bog deal which he lighted and set fire to the boat.--The prosecutor, however, had not made any informations in the case for a month after the act was alleged to have taken place, and on cross-examination it appeared he had a grudge against the prisoner and had trumped up the charge against him.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.

March 30, 1861

WARNING TO POACHERS--At Lurgan Petty Sessions--J. W. GREER and William Moore MILLAR, esq., presiding; Lord Lurgan; and John HANDCOCK, Esq., declining to act in this particular case--William CLARKE, Esq., Inland Revenue officer, charged a man named John STEVENSON with using snares, for the purpose of catching hares and other game in the townland of Annaloist (sp?), where he resides. The offence was proved by John BURRELL, gamekeeper to Lord Lurgan. It appears that on the evening of the 23rd January last, BURRELL saw three snares set in a bog on STEVENSON's farm, in such a manner to catch hares or rabbits; he drew one of them at that time, and next morning he returned to the place, drew another, and having taken shelter behind a bush, the morning being very severe, he observed STEVENSON come opposite to where the snares were, drop the wheelbarrow he had in his hands, cross over a distance of about 30 yards, stoop down, and reset the snares. The prosecution was sustained by Mr. MORRIS and Mr. CARLETON. The defendant was represented by Mr. ATKINSON, who addressed the bench on his behalf. After a short consultation, Mr. MILLER announced that the magistrates had decided on fining STEVENSON in the mitigated penalty of £5.

CO. ROSCOMMON--MURDER--On last Thursday evening, about eight o'clock, a remarkedly fine athletic young man, named John KEVENY, from near Castlerea, was found dead on the public road, near Frenchpark, bearing two extensive fractures on his skull. Informations of the occurrence were immediately forwarded to T. P. PEYOTE, Esq., coroner, who has thought it prudent to postpone holding his inquest till this day (Saturday), for the purpose of giving time to the constabulary to serve summonses, make arrests, and procure a large number of witnesses. The case being of a waylaying character, the coroner has directed eighteen respectable men to be empanelled on the jury. Another man is now lying in a most dangerous state from the effects of a beating by the same parties--all of whom were returning from the races of Frenchpark on the above evening. As numbers of persons were on the road at the time it is hoped there will be no difficulty in detecting the perpetrators. Sub-Inspector BLAKE, of Frenchpark, promptly headed his men to the scene of the outrage and most actively engaged throughout the night in arresting a number of suspected persons.-- "Boyle Gazette."


At the Cottage, Castledawson, on the 21st instant, Mrs. M. GRIFFITHS gave birth to three fine children--all boys.


On the 24th instant, at Tullylough, near this town, in her 98th year, Mrs. Anne WALSH.

On the 21st instant, Mabella, the beloved wife of James Thomson TENNENT, Esq., of Cormeen, County Monaghan.

On Monday, the 25th instant, George, son of William BETTY, Esq., Willoughby-place, Enniskillen, aged 11 years.

On the 17th instant, Hannah, eldest daughter of the late John James MORTON, Esq., Fairview Cottage, Belturbet, after a lengthened illness.

At Grogey, near Brookeborough, county Fermanagh, on the 22nd March, Mr. John HOGG, aged 72 years. For 42 years he was Master of the Cooman Orange Lodge, No. 1,010, in which he succeeded his father, who was connected with the institution for upwards of half a century. His remains were followed to the grave by 86 members of his own lodge, wearing white scarfs, and by the largest funeral procession for many years seen in the neighbourhood. After the usual service, and a suitable address having been delivered, the body was committed to its final resting place, according to the orders and observances of the Society.

THE CONSTABULARY--Constable MACNAMA, lately stationed at Derrylin, has retired from the force on a pension of full pay--£36 a year. He served nearly thirty-three years, and was never removed out of the county Fermanagh. Those who know the Constable will rejoice at his good luck--it is merit rewarded. Captain FOOT, C.I., was proud of MACNAMA, whom he considered a credit to the force, and did his duty by him when his services were being considered.--Fermanagh Reporter.

CO.LEITRIM MILITIA--His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland has appointed Captain Malachi HANLEY to be Adjutant to the Regiment of Militia of Riflemen for the County Leitrim.


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

The Trustees of Loughs Oughter and Gowna and River Erne Drainage v. Henry GREENE and Charles KING

Mr. Thomas REILLY, secretary to the complainants applied for a further postponement of this case for a fortnight, as he expected the defendants would make good the injury committed by them to the drainage works.

The defendants did not appear, but Mr. S. N. KNIPE, who appeared on their behalf at the last hearing of the case, offered no opposition to the application, which was accordingly granted.

Constable KERR v. James FITZPATRICK and James M'CABE

The constable stated that he found the defendants boxing in the Market-square on Tuesday. A crowd had collected, and the combatants were separated by some civilians, but he thought it right to bring the matter before the Court.

Mr. Wm. JOHNSTON said there had been no riot upon the occasion in question. The defendants were barrow men, and had some trifling dispute between themselves when the constable saw them.

One of the defendants made a similar statement.

The Chairman asked the defendants if either of them wished to prosecute the other. They refused to do so, and his Worship, after stating his opinion that the constable had done his duty in the matter, ordered the case to be "nilled".

Constable James M'CARTHY v. Thomas O'BRIEN, John FARRELLY, and James POSEY

The worthy Constable, while perambulating the town of Stradone on the balmy evening of St. Patrick's Day, found the defendants enjoying a little shindy amongst themselves, in honour of the illustrious banisher of the toads and serpents. He arrested POSEY, FARRELLY made a mild attempt at rescuing his friend, and O'BRIEN "made tracks" for his home. He succeeded in bringing POSEY, and FARRELLY to the barrack, but discharged them on ascertaining their names and residences, and summoned the trio. There had been some fighting in REILLY's public-house previous to the combat between the defendants. FARRELLY did not strike him, and POSEY went quietly to the barrack. The defendants pleaded guilty, but begged to be excused "on account of the day was in it," and his Worship, taking a lenient view of the case, allowed them to be discharged on paying the costs.

Patrick CONARTY v. Peter M'LENNON and Mary M'LENNON

This case, a charge of robbery, the particulars of which were given in our last, was next called--M'LENNON's wife being also summoned. Mr. John ARMSTRONG appeared for complainant, and Mr. S. N. KNIPE for defendants. M'LENNON did not appear, but his was present. CONARTY's evidence was in accordance with the statement made by Mr. Armstrong on last court day. He was severely cross-examined by Mr. Knipe, who elicited many points in favour of his clients, and a young girl named Catherine DONOHOE, servant to M'LENNON, contradicted his evidence in the most material points. Head-Constable MOORE also proved that CONARTY's testimony in court varied in almost every particular from the statement he made at the police barracks and at M'LENNON's house on the morning after the alleged robbery. His Worship therefore dismissed the case.

Anthony SMITH v. Susan FARRELLY, and Susan FARRELLY v. Anthony SMITH

This was a summons and cross-summons for assault and battery.

The facts of the case appeared to be that Susan married the son of an old man named FARRELLY about three years ago, bringing with her £20 as a dowry. Herself and her husband and father-in-law lived together, the understanding at the time of her marriage being that herself and her husband were to have the house and farm at the old man's death. The marriage does not appear to have been a happy one, and Susan's husband, about a year and a half ago, departed for America, in which country he still remains--a step which her foes allege that he was compelled to take by the ill-usage he received from Susan--such as kicking him out of bed, and other manifestations of connubial playfulness. Susan, however, indignantly denies this, and asserts that her liege lord was influenced to leave her the machinations of her enemies. Be that as it may, herself and her father-in-law appear to have lived on anything but friendly terms since, and in October last their disputes let to mutual summonses and recriminations. On the day named in the present summons, Anthony SMITH, with three other men, went to plough on old FARRELLY's land, and his reason for doing so was that FARRELLY was indebted to his father for the sum of 12l., for a bill of exchange, and having no other way of paying it, had given SMITH a few fields as con-acre.--Seeing the ploughing party on the territory to which, by her marriage settlement, she considered herself entitled, Susan made enquiries as to who sent them there, and received evasive answers. She asked one of them his name, and he sarcastically replied that it was "butther and crame," and coolly proceeded to put his ploughing tackle in working order. Susan resisted, and a battle royal ensued--Susan, though a "poor wake woman" keeping four able-bodied men at bay. Stones were flung, horses rendered restive, and ploughing an impossibility. At last a bright thought struck the opponents of poor Susan. By a cleverly-executed flank movement in full force, they seized her arms--the natural ones, which she used so well--coiled a rope round these lovely limbs, and so rendered her powerless,--They then threw her upon the ground and when they had recovered from the fatigue naturally resulting from this chivalrous proceeding, dragged her to her own house, and like another Joan of Arc, left her, after all her exploits, in "durance vile." Not content with this, she alleges that SMITH, flushed with his victory, struck her previous to leaving the house, and that some of the party broke two panes of glass, whilst SMITH and his party assert that they only acted in self-defence. In the conflict Susan's eye was blackened, her arm injured, and her hands much scratched. SMITH alleged that his thumb was bitten by Susan, his hair pulled, and his hands scratched. None of the rest of his party were wounded. All the witnesses having been examined and cross-examined by Mr. M'GAURAN (who appeared for Susan) and Mr. TULLY (who was concerned for SMITH), and the case having closed on both sides,

His Worship dismissed the case against Susan, and fined SMITH 2s. 6d. and costs. Although Susan appeared to be somewhat of the virago, and might have brought a good deal of the assault upon herself, he considered that nothing could justify the conduct of SMITH and his party towards her.

There were only one or two other cases of no public interest.


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

His Worship entered court at ten o'clock. The following magistrates occupied seats upon the Bench:--Theophilus THOMPSON, Nathaniel MONTGOMERY, Wm. BABINGTON, Thomas Frederick KNIPE, W.M. HICKSON, R.M., J. G. TATLOW.

The court having been opened with the usual formalities, the following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:

Edward KENNEDY, Esq., Foreman; William Moore BLACK, Francis M'CABE, James MORROW, Henry DOUGLAS, Francis Edward HUDDLESTON, John DAVIS, John GANNON, John PRUNTY, James HARTLEY, John BEATTY, Edward FEGAN, Henry NESBITT, John MOORE, and John BEATTY, Esqrs.

The Grand Jury having retired to consider their findings, the Court proceeded to hear the insolvent cases. In the course of half an hour or thereabouts, the Foreman and three of the Grand Jury came into court and stated that in two of the bills they could not get the principals witnesses before them. One of the cases was the charge of robbery preferred against Peter M'LENNON, of Bridge-street, for having stolen 10l. from a man named TAAFFE, the particulars of which appeared in our Petty Sessions report at the time the case was sent for trial. TAAFFE was present, but DEGNAN, the principal witness, was not forthcoming. His Worship directed that the case should be postponed until next Quarter Sessions. After the discharge of the Grand Jury DEGNAN came into court and explained the cause of his non-attendance, which was the insufficient notice given him, and an unavoidable delay in Longford--He was informed that he should attend at next Quarter Sessions. In the other case the witness attended previous to the discharge of the Grand Jury, which was at an early hour, as the number of bills was extremely small, and were all cases in which bail had been accepted.


A respectable petty jury having been sworn, Michael MAGUIRE was indicted for having, on the 2nd of Feb. last, assaulted John GORMLY, so as to endanger his life; with having assaulted him so as to cause actual bodily harm; with having committed a common assault upon him; with having with others caused a riot and affray, at same time and place.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted. John GORMLY was the first witness, and deposed that he lives in the county of Longford, and on the 2nd of February was returning from the Derries, where he had been ploughing that day; was lying in his own cart in which was his plough; about seven o'clock, in passing Frank SHEAL's house; five or six men came along by the cart, and one of them bade him good night; he responded to the salutation; one of the party asked him how far he was going; he replied that they "wern't a hate astray," when "the word was broke in his mouth" by a blow of a stick or ship; he got two or three blows on the head and several blows upon the back, sides, and legs; he shouted for assistance.....knew the prisoner before; lives about four miles from him; first saw him in Arvagh last Summer, and had never any quarrel with him; after receiving the beating, went as far as the house of a man named BRADY, about sixteen perches from where the assault was committed; remained there until morning; bled a great deal; fell in BRADY's house from weakness caused by loss of blood; Dr. SPROULE, of Arvagh, came to attend him.....he made use of a person named SHERIDAN to the Arvagh Petty Sessions Court on Tuesday before the assault; both SHERIDAN and himself attended at Arvagh on the day the summons was to be heard, but there was no Petty Sessions that day; there are two factions in Arvagh called the "Sheridans" and the M'Nibo;s;" there are a great many factions about Arvagh.....

His Worship--It's quite enough to get up a fight.

Examination continued...Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the prisoner, but the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

There was only one other criminal case--a charge of assault against a young many named James REILLY, who pleaded guilty, and was bound over to keep the peace.

The petty jury were then discharged.

Two insolvent cases and spirit licenses were previously heard. There were four insolvent cases. In one case, that of Samuel TRAYNOR, in which Mr. KNIPE appeared for the insolvent, there was no opposition and the insolvent was discharged. In the case of Edbert RITCHIE, Mr. Knipe appearing for the insolvent, and Mr. M'GAURAN opposing on the part of James HAGAN, brother-in-law of the insolvent, there was a postponement, and that of William LAHY was also postponed. In the case of Mr. John FOY, of Cootehill, Mr. John Armstrong appeared on behalf of Messrs PERRY and Co., Proprietors of the Clara Mills; and Mr. N. CARROLL. Mr. Knipe apposed it on behalf of Messrs. BAGGOTT, HUTTON, & Co. The case was heard at considerable length, and Mr. Charles FOY, son of the insolvent, and Mr. GRAY, agent to Messrs. Robert PERRY, & Co. were examined, and at the termination his Worship postponed the case until next Quarter Sessions.

There was only one application for a spirit license for this town--that of Mr. John MAGUINNESS, Main-st. The applicant had not a certificate, but two of the magistrates in Court having consented to reconsider the case, the application was postponed until the following morning, when Mr. MAGUINNESS, having procured a certification, received his license. There were two applications for Arvagh--Hugh FLOOD and Patrick REYNOLDS--both of which were granted, as was also the application of Philip DONOHOE, of Crosskeys.

The following were amongst the civil bill cases heard on Tuesday:

James BURKE v. Hugh BRADY

Mr. James Armstrong appeared for the plaintiff and said that it was an action brought to recover 14s. price of a sofa, the property of plaintiff, which was purchased from Mr. CHADWICK, the auctioneer, to whom plaintiff had give it with other articles to be sold by auction. At last Quarter Sessions, Mr. BRADY, the defendant, alleged that a man named MAGUIRE had the sofa and the case was postponed for MAGUIRE's evidence.

Chairman--Let us hear Mr. CHADWICK.

Mr. George CHADWICK, auctioneer, was then sworn and stated that he did not sell the sofa by public auction, but he thought he sold it by private sale.

Chairman--What do you mean by you thought you sold it?

Witness--It was a mistake of Mr. Brady's. He bid for the sofa at the auction, and it was knocked down to him. He refused to take it, but in the evening he came back and said to have the sofa removed to Dan MAGUIRE's.

Mr. Armstrong--Did you sell him the sofa?

Witness-- I thought it was a 'bona fide' sale. The sofa was removed to Dan MAGUIRE's, and I haven't seen it since, but I very often heard of it.

Chairman--So did I (laughter).....

Chairman--Where's MAGUIRE?

Daniel MAGUIRE having been called, refused to give evidence until he received his expenses. He claimed a day's wages, 6s., which he said he could earn at any time, and stated that he had been in Court since morning. After some dispute, however, he consented to accept whatever his Worship thought fit to award. His Worship directed that the plaintiff should give him 2s. 6d.

The witness was then sworn, and stated that he did not know who left the sofa at his house, but he intended to charge 4d. per week as storage for it. To Mr. M'Gauran--BRADY never came to my place to give directions about the sofa; he often said he had no call to it; BURKE and Mr. REID came for the sofa; I did not tell them that I would not give it until BRADY would come for it; what I said was that I would not give it until Mr. BRADY and Mr. CHADWICK both came; I don't know who brought the sofa to my place..

Mr. BURKE, the owner of the sofa stated that himself and a Mr. REID went to MAGUIRE's for the sofa, and that MAGUIRE refused to give it until they brought a line from BRADY, as he had the pillows at Sylvester WALLACE's....

Terence SMITH deposed that he assisted to carry the sofa, on the evening of the auction....

Mr. CHADWICK was then recalled, and deposed that 'no part or word" of BRADY's testimony was true...The case was continued at some length, Mr. CHADWICK persisting in his statement, Mr. BRADY doing the same, and further denying the statement of Mr. BURKE relative to the expressions said to have been used by him when the bill was presented; MAGUIRE alleging that he did not see the messenger who brought the sofa to his house; and Mr. BURKE and Mr. REID adhering to their first evidence. The case having closed, the jury found for the plaintiff--14s, and expressed an opinion that the defendant should get the sofa from MAGUIRE without "storage" being charged.


This was a process to recover wages earned by plaintiff and his wife--the sister of defendant--part being earned by her as housekeeper to her brother, previous to her marriage, and the remainder by herself and her husband since.

Plaintiff's wife (an elderly woman) was examined by Mr. Knipe, and deposed that she acted for years as housekeeper to her brother; and that herself and her husband lived with and worked for him for two years after their marriage, which took place about three years and a half since.

Mr. M'GAURAN (who appeared for defendant)--And she could not at end last Quarter Sessions, because the honeymoon was going on.

Chairman--Nearly time that should be over.

Mr. KNIPE--She was delicate, your Worship.--Didn't your brother agree not to get married, but to leave the place to you and your husband after his death?

Chairman--He could not make that agreement, Mr. Knipe; it's an illegal one--contrary to public policy.

Chairman--Impossible, Mr. Knipe
Mr. M'Gauran--Nothing is impossible, your Worship, when she got a husband.
Mr. Knipe--Show your own handfull.
Mr. M'Gauran--We see yours, Mr. Knipe--You can't compare with the groom, anyhow.

The witness then proceeded to state that she did the in-door and out-door work for her brother for years, and herself and her husband worked for him after marriage; her brother afterwards married a woman named SMITH, and turned herself and her husband out without giving them any compensation.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'Gauran--I took the notion to marry late in life; I thought I might as well; it's better late than never; LYNCH was a servant boy when I married him; I had £25; I supposed he heard I had the money; we lived with my brother after our marriage, and worked for him; my brother had to employ a boy for five years until my husband went to live with him; I did not ask for my husband's wages; I said if he'd give me my bed I'll leave him my blessing; he did not give me the bed, and I don't think I left him my blessing when I was leaving; we made no bargain with my brother for wages.

LYNCH, the husband of the witness, who is a very young man, gave similar evidence, but his Worship dismissed the case, as there was no evidence of any contract having been made by defendant with plaintiff or his wife.

On Wednesday and Thursday the following, amongst a large number of uninteresting cases, were heard:--


This was an action to recover 10l. 15s., loss and damage sustained by plaintiff, in consequence of defendant having sold him a cow, warranted all right and sound, but which had the distemper at time of sale, and afterwards died in consequence of same.

Mr. M'Gauran appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. Armstrong for the defendant.

The principal witness to prove that the cow in question was distempered was a butcher, named Patrick ROURKE, from Kells, who made a 'post mortem' examination of the cow, found it distempered, purchased the carcass for 30s., and sold it to his customers at 2d. and 2½d. per lb.! coolly informing the Court that but for distempered cows "poor people could not taste a bit of meat for the last eight or nine years," and that he habitually deals in distempered cows.

A jury of three farmers tried the case, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

The Chairman asked on what grounds they had come to this conclusion. The jury replied that they acted on the testimony of the butcher.

The Chairman said he would not have acted upon ROURKE's evidence, and there was no other evidence to show that the cow was distempered. One man swore that the cow did not feed well; but the weight of evidence was that the cow was not distempered.

Mr. Armstrong said he would lodge an appeal.

The Chairman said he thought Mr. Armstrong was acting right in lodging an appeal.

Catherine DOWNY v. James GALLIGAN

This was a civil bill process to recover 5l. 10s., due to plaintiff by defendant--3l. cash lent, and 2l.10s., price of a sow purchased by him, four years since. The plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister, and flatly contradicted each other's evidence--the former swearing that the money had not been paid, and the latter that it had. The plaintiff's son partly corroborated her testimony. The case was left, by consent, to the arbitration of the Rev. John BOYLAN and the Rev. Mr. REILLY.

Anne DONOHOE, administratix of Bernard DONOHOE, deceased, v. John KERNAN

This was an action to recover £5, 5s. 9d., balance of 7l. lent to plaintiff by defendant's husband. The defence was that defendant paid the money to Bernard DONOHOE, some time before his death, and did not ask for a receipt.

The Chairman, in deciding the case, said there could be no safety for contracts if, after a man's death, his debtors could come into court, and, without a receipt, allege that they had paid him. He would, therefore, give a decree for the amount claimed.

Patrick FLEMING v. Michael REILLY

This was an action brought by plaintiff for the seduction of his daughter. The latter proved the seduction as having been effected under promise of marriage. She lost the use of her limbs in consequence of an operation she had to undergo at her "accouchement," and has since been obliged to use crutches. An attempt was made to rebut her evidence, but without effect.--The Chairman gave a decree for 10l. 10s.

Attorney for the plaintiff--Mr. James Armstrong.--For defendant--Mr. Knipe.


This was an action for loss and damage sustained by plaintiff, who is an extensive lime-burner, in consequence of defendant, Mr. William HAGUE, merchant, Cavan, not having fulfilled an agreement entered into with him to deliver and quantity of culm, purchased for the purposes of his business. It may be remembered that plaintiff brought an action against the Midland Great Western Railway Company at last Quarter Sessions for breach of contract in not delivering the culm at Crossdoney station, as they were bound to do, and the action was defeated in consequence of the railway company having made the agreement with Mr. HAGUE, and not with plaintiff. His Worship, after a careful hearing, also dismissed the present case, as plaintiff had not given defendant any consideration, as was necessary, for the culm-it being an item in a "running account" between him and defendant--and therefore not a contract upon which an action like the present could be sustained.

Attorney for the plaintiff--Mr. Knipe. For defendant--Messrs. John and James Armstrong.

Bernard M'LENNON v. Peter M'LENNON

This was a civil bill process for £16, which plaintiff was compelled to pay for defendant's use and benefit--Plaintiff is defendant's father, and alleged that he took a house in Bridge-street for his son, and was obliged to pay the sum claimed, as a year's rent for said house, and had been warned to pay another half-year's rent also. The defendant (against whom a charge of robbery is pending) did not appear. The defence set up on the part of his wife was that she has not means to pay the sum claimed, and that plaintiff or his wife had received a quantity of defendant's goods at the period of his bankruptcy, without giving any equivalent.

His Worship referred the case, by consent, to Mr. Thomas REILLY and Mr. KENNEDY.

The Rev.--M'CABE v. Robert Bell BOOTH, Esq.

This was an action for breach of warranty respecting a mare, bought from defendant and which the plaintiff averred had been warranted quiet and trained to harness, but on the first attempt to drive her she ran away and smashed the vehicle; and also when plaintiff rode her she kicked and showed great vice. These facts were proved by plaintiff, and the engagement was proved by several witnesses.

Witnesses were also examined for the defence, which was that no engagement as to the mare being adapted for harness had been given; that she had no vice, and was a good saddle mare; but defendant admitted that there was some conversation respecting harness, but that such conversation was entirely with reference to another animal, dam of the mare sold to the Rev. Mr. M'CABE. His Worship gave the plaintiff a decree for £10.


This was an action to recover damages for a horse or pony sold by defendant to plaintiff, warranted all right and sound, but afterwards discovered to be contrary to engagement. The following facts appeared in evidence.

Plaintiff deposed to the purchase and engagement. Mr. HARDMAN, V.S., proved to the nature of the unsoundness. He was ably cross-examined by Mr. Knipe, for the defence, but his direct testimony continued unshaken.

Several other witnesses were produced, who proved to the horse having appeared lame from immediately after the purchase.

For the defence it was urged that the horse was really sound at the time of sale, and that any defects now appearing in him were the result of ill usage since the purchase. It was also proved that defendant, for whom the horse was bought in when auctioned by plaintiff, and afterwards received £10 for it--the price given by defendant. The case was referred to a jury, who having retired and viewed the animal, which was brought to the Courthouse yard for that purpose, returned a verdict for plaintiff £3 15s.--the horse having brought that sum, when auctioned by plaintiff, less than the price given by him to defendant.

Attorney for the plaintiff--Mr. E. M'Gauran. For defendant--Mr. Knipe.

Philip SMITH v. Thomas SMITH

This was a process for £4, which plaintiff had been compelled to pay for defendant's use. Plaintiff and defendant are co-tenants of some land, against which an ejectment had been brought, to avoid which plaintiff had been obliged to pay his own rent and that of the portion of land now held by defendant, but at that time in the occupation of defendant's mother or brother--defendant being then in America.

His Worship dismissed the case, as defendant was not legally liable.

The Court sat until about two o'clock on Thursday, when, all cases for hearing having been disposed of, his Worship proceeded to Ballyconnell, and opened the Quarter Sessions there on yesterday morning. The Quarter Sessions for Cootehill will commence on Monday.

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.