Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan

April 5, 1862


There was only one case for hearing at this Court on Saturday, a summons against John SMITH, of Mudwall Row, for having a dog at large, unlogged and unmuzzled, in the public streets, on the 26th of March. The defendant was fined 5s, including costs.


Magistrates present:--William Babington, Esq., Chairman; Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., and William Smith, Esq.


Susan MASTERSON was charged with having violently assaulted an old woman named Elizabeth COOKE, a pauper in the Cavan Workhouse. The old woman stated that, when sitting in the infirmary ward of the Workhouse, Susan came in to warm herself at the fire. Having a pain in her shoulder, and the Chaplain being about to come in, she asked Susan to help her in putting on her shawl. Susan refused to do so, and after "a few words" had passed between them, she struck the poor old creature with a poker on the shoulder, severely injuring her, and depriving her of the use of the arm since then. She asserted that she gave Susan no provocation, and that the inmates of the infirmary ward are all in fear and terror of Susan's prowess.--Susan, who looked more than usually gloomy, did not deny the assault, and the only excuse she advanced was that the old woman impeached her and her sister's virtue. She was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, with hard labour suited to her sex, and the Chairman, in passing sentence, regretted that the Court had no power to impose a heavier punishment.


John JACKSON, a caretaker in the employment of the Right Hon. Lord Farnham, K.P., appeared to prosecute William SHERIDAN and Patrick CARTY, two young men, for having, on Sunday, the 23rd of March, trespassed on the lands of Killykeen, with a dog and gun, and shot at waterfowl there. JACKSON stated that on the day named in the summons he saw the defendants with a boat, water spaniel, and gun on the Killykeen river having passed through the land. A short time afterwards he heard a shot, and went down to where the boat was. He asked defendants for their names, when CARTY put the oar of the boat against his breast. SHERIDAN stated that himself and CARTY were seeing a friend home; that as JACKSON did not prevent them passing through the land, they thought it no harm to fire at a baldcoot, and that they would not have done so had they known that they were committing an offence. The defendants received a high character, and JACKSON stated that he had no wish to press the charge of being in pursuit of game.....The Court informed defendants that they had left themselves liable to a fine of £10 for being unlawfully in pursuit of game, their offence being aggravated by the fact that it was committed on Sunday. However, taking the circumstances of the case into account, together with the good character given of them, the Court would only fine them in the costs, and fine CARTY 1s and costs, in addition, for the assault upon JACKSON.


Elizabeth SMITH was charged, on remand, with having, on 2nd February last, deserted her male infant child, by leaving it in the barn of Peter SMITH, of Drumuck. The circumstances of this case were rather curious. Peter SMITH found the child in his barn on the morning of Sunday, the 2nd of February, and communicated the fact to his clergyman, after Divine Service, on the same day. On the following day he gave information to the police, but for a considerable time no clue could be found to the mother of the child. SMITH's wife nursed the child for some time, and afterwards, through the intervention of the clergyman of the parish, the child was put out to nurse. Some time ago a woman named Lucy SMITH was visiting at the house of SMITH, and she gave him such information as led him to believe that Elizabeth SMITH was the mother of the child. Elizabeth SMITH lived sometimes with her father, and sometimes with her brother-in-law, a man named M'CABE. The former resides about a mile and a half, and the latter about three miles from Peter SMITH's house. Peter SMITH went to her, and stated that he understood that she was the mother of the child which he found in his barn. She asserted that she knew nothing about the child, but further evidence having been procured, she was arrested and brought before William SMITH, Esq., J.P., who committed her. Upon an examination of her person in prison, it was discovered that she had been recently confined of a child....As soon as she was admitted to bail, or a few days afterwards, she charged Peter SMITH with being the father of the deserted child, and acknowledged that she was the mother, stating, as an excuse for having left it in SMITH's barn, that he requested her to do so, in order that he might not be disgraced, as he is a married man, and well stricken in years.....SMITH positively swore that he had not seen or spoken to the prisoner for upwards of fifteen years prior to the finding of the child, and it appeared that he had been put to considerable trouble in trying to discover the mother of the child. Several witnesses were examined for the prosecution, some of whom (females) gave their evidence with great reluctance. After hearing the case at considerable length, the Court sent the case for trial to the Quarter Sessions--the prisoner to remain out on bail.


Patrick CAROLAN, of Clonervy, was fined 3s and costs, for the trespass of three head of cattle on the lands of Mr. George GRAHAM, of Clonervy House.

Mr. John Armstrong stated that he understood on last Court day that the charges of trespass preferred by William Armitage MOORE, Esq., J.P., against William LEARY and others, were left over, in order that Mr. MOORE might come to an arrangement with Mr. CROWE. A letter had just been received from Mr. MOORE stating that he wished the cases to go on. The Court had all the evidence before them on the last Court day, and they had only postponed their decision for the reason above stated, and not through any doubt that the defendants were liable for the trespass. There was only one of the defendants in Court, and he urged, as on the last occasion, that he merely followed the directions of his employer. The Chairman informed him that he had no right to do so in violation of the orders of the Court. LEARY was then fined 2s 6d, with costs, and the other defendants 1s each, with costs.


Denis SHERIDAN was brought up in custody charged with having violently assaulted his sister, Anne DONOVAN. The prisoner, a very old man, is of unsound mind, and resides at Ardeny with the prosecutrix. He assaulted her on two or three occasions, and her informations stated that she feared he would take her life. He did not appear to understand anything of the charge against him, and was sent for trial to the Quarter Sessions.


Patrick SMITH, a carpenter, summoned Phillip M'SHERRY for 7s 6d, balance of wages earned at 2s per day. The defendant pleaded that the agreement was 1s 6d per day, but did not succeed in proving this statement, and the Court gave a decree, with costs, for the sum claimed.


John SMITH, Owen COLLINS, and others, were charged on informations with having assaulted Patrick SMITH, a farmer, who resides at Castleterra. A partial assault was committed by some of the accused upon the prosecutor in the two of Cavan, and the police who witnessed it accompanied him to the end of the town, but on his way home he was waylaid and beaten. He exonerated one of the accused, by stating that he had been mistaken in his name. as some of the parties accused by him were not amenable, the case was postponed for a week, and the prosecutor was re-bound to prosecute.

John GOGGINS, Susan GOGGINS, Letitia GOGGINS, William LOUGHIRTON, and George TRUMAN, who stood out on bail, again appeared to answer the charge of having assaulted James MAGUIRE on the road leading from Cavan to Cootehill, on the 11th of March. Neither prosecutor or accused had any legal assistance. It appeared that the prosecutor was returning from this town on the 11th instant, and on his way home (all the parties reside near Ballyhaise), e met with the defendants and some of their friends. He and his friends walked along with him. In consequence of some "chaffling" about women, which passed between them, LOUGHIRTON informed MAGUIRE that he would "knock the ear off him." A man named POYNTZ, who was of the party, informed LOUGHIRTON that he would not allow him to do so. LOUGHIRTON and POYNTZ then commenced to fight, and shortly after a general "shindy" took place, in the course of which Letitia GOGGINS struck MAGUIRE with a loaded whip or "butt" and Susan GOGGINS struck him with a "shoved shaft." He was afterwards knocked down, kicked and beaten by others of the party. The evidence adduced was rather confused, and the prosecutor did not seem anxious to prove his charge, a species of "compromise" having been effected out of Court. The prosecutor's life was in danger for some time from the effects of the beating he received. The case occupied a very long time, and there were also some cross summonses on the part of LOUGHIRTON and others of the accused. The Court did not consider that the charge of assault was proved against the male prisoners, and dismissed the case against them. They considered the charge against the two women proved, and fined them 5s each, with £1 costs.

There were no other cases for hearing, and the Court rose about four o'clock.


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 of Cavan.

His Worship entered Court shortly after ten o'clock. The following magistrates occupied seats on the Bench, and assisted his Worship in the transaction of business during the day:--William Babington, Esq., Theophilus Thompson, Esq., Captain Carden, Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., Rev. E. W. B. Venables, D. F. Jones, Esq., F. F. Knipe, Esq., &c.


Thomas HARTLEY, of Countenan, Esq., Foreman; Edward KENNEDY, Matthew LOUGH, William Moore BLACK, Henry DOUGLAS, James HARTLEY, Alexander KETTYLE, Edward FEGAN , James MORROW, James GILROY, Francis Edward HUDLESTON, Phillip SMITH, John DAVIS, John DOHERTY, Henry NESBITT, John MOORE, and William Humphreys NESBITT.


In re Phillip REILLY

Mr. Knipe applied for a postponement of this case, on the part of insolvent, until next Quarter Sessions. Mr. M'GAURAN opposed the application on the part of the detaining creditors--Peter REILLY, and a man named MARTIN. The insolvent had been a road contractor, and being unable to complete his contract he induced MARTIN and REILLY to join him in completing his contract. The amount of the contract was £99 4s, and REILLY and MARTIN were to received one-third each of this amount. Some payments were disallowed by the Grand Jury, and the total sum received by the insolvent on the foot of is contract was £77 5s, but of these he only gave REILLY £5, and a somewhat larger sum, but less than the one-third, to MARTIN. The remainder he appropriated to his own use.

The insolvent was examined by Mr. Knipe, and cross-examined by Mr. M'Gauran. He admitted the main facts urged for the opposition.

The Chairman said that if the insolvent did not arrange with REILLY and MARTIN before the following morning, he would send him back to goal for three months.

In re Patrick PLUNKETT

Mr. Knipe appeared on behalf of the insolvent, and Mr. M'Gauran opposed on behalf of Mr. John M'MANUS. This is the third occasion on which the insolvent has been before the Court.

Mr. M'MANUS, the opposing creditor, is agent to John LYNCH, Esq., Roebuck. The insolvent put his name to a bill for one of Mr. LYNCH's tenants, a man named REILLY, thus going as security to Mr. M'MANUS for the amount of rent due by REILLY. REILLY afterwards became insolvent, proceedings were taken against him in the superior courts, and he was finally evicted for non-payment of rent. Mr. LYNCH realised £125 for the good will of REILLY's farm, and £52 for his crops--in all, £177, or £37 over the amount for which the insolvent was security. According to the advertisement issued by Mr. LYNCH, the farm was sold subject to the debts upon it. Mr. LYNCH gave Mr. M'MANUS the amount of the bill which he had accepted from insolvent. At the last Quarter Sessions the case was postponed in expectation of some such arrangement, but it was also understood that Mr. M'MANUS was to receive his costs. ...The Chairman considered that the insolvent should pay Mr. M'MANUS the costs incurred by him in attending at the Quarter Sessions, but he would make no order relative to any other costs. He would order insolvent to pay Mr. M'MANUS £3, and the insolvent was allowed until Thursday morning to pay that sum.

In re Edward REILLY

Mr. Knipe appeared for the insolvent, and Mr. James Armstrong opposed on behalf of Mr. Robert VANCE and Mr. Michael HART. The insolvent was a shopkeeper carrying on business in the town of Arvagh, and was also a farmer. His debts were few, and the only monies he returned as available were two shillings and six pence which he had in his pocket when arrested. It appeared, however, that prior to his arrest he had disposed of two cows, a calf, straw, and hay. The insolvent stated that he applied the money obtained by this sale to the payment of the rent of his farm. The Chairman ruled that the insolvent should give up his farm for the benefit of his creditors--Mr. VANCE to be appointed assignee. The insolvent expressed himself satisfied with this arrangement.

There were some other insolvent cases, but no opposition was made to the discharge of the insolvents.

The Chairman then proceeded to hear the


James GULSHENAN, appellant; Constable HEUSTON, of Ballyhaise, respondent

This was an appeal from magistrates' conviction at Belturbet Petty Sessions, at which appellant was fined £6 for having illicit whiskey in his possession, and for some other breaches of the excise acts....Mr. Armstrong contended that the appeal having been lodged immediately after the conviction, the Chairman at Petty Sessions having accepted the notice of appeal, and the Clerk of Petty Sessions having given the usual certificate, these circumstances were "prima facie" evidence that the appellant had complied with all the requirements...The Chairman overruled these arguments, and stated that, as the appellant had not complied with the requirements of the Act of Parliament, he would make no rule in the case.

There were several other appeals from decrees given Civil cases, but the parties concerned did not appear, and the above was the only appeal which came directly before the court.

The Chairman next proceeded to hear the


The only applications before the Court were those of Patrick FARRELLY, Bridge-street, Cavan, and Hugh WILLIAMSON, Dublin street, Ballyjamesduff. There was no opposition and both licenses were granted.

A petty jury having been sworn, the Chairman then proceeded to dispose of the


Honora REILLY pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with having stolen a sheet on the 10th of March. No previous conviction was proved against her, but, although very young, it appeared that she bore a bad character prior to the commission of the offence charged in the indictment. She was sentenced to be imprisoned for three months.

Elizabeth SMITH was indicted for having, on the 2d of February last, deserted, exposed, and abandoned a certain male infant child, named John BARN, in the barn of Peter SMITH, of Drumuck, with intent to make the said child chargeable to the parish of Laragh; a second count charged the prisoner with having abandoned and exposed the child with intent to make it chargeable to Peter SMITH; and a third count charged her with a common assault upon the said child. The prisoner pleaded not guilty....The jury returned a verdict of acquittal, as there was not sufficient identification of the child.

Hugh DOHERTY and Patrick DOHERTY were indicted for having, at Arvagh, on the 4th of October, 1861 with others been guilty of a riot and affray; with having (illegible) the time and place, assaulted Patrick MURRAY, so as to do him grievous bodily harm, and with a common assault upon the said Patrick MURRAY....The prisoners pleaded not guilty,...MURRAY, when coming upon the table, requested permission to withdraw the charge against the prisoners, as he never had any quarrel with them previous to the assault. The Chairman....refused to allow it to be withdrawn....[Examination and cross-examination of witnesses] A couple of witnesses were then examined as to character, who deposed that the prisoners always bore excellent characters, and that the elder brother had been in the police for some time, in the Reserve Depot at the Phoenix Park, Dublin.....The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. His Worship sentenced Patrick DOHERTY to eight months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and Hugh DOHERTY to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour.


His Worship entered Court at half past nine o'clock--The Rev. E. W. B.Venables, Theophilus Thompson, William Babington, John Litton, Esqrs., and some other magistrates occupied seats on the Bench, and assisted his Worship in the transaction of business during the day.--The following were the most interesting cases heard on Wednesday:--


This process was brought for the recovery of the balance of price of cattle, manure, and a house which plaintiff sold to defendant. At the last Quarter Sessions, plaintiff got a decree by default, defendant not having been in Court when the case was called; but, having come in shortly afterwards, his Worship postponed the case until the present Sessions....The Jury dismissed the case on the merits.


The process in this case was brought for the recovery of 6l. Mr. KENNEDY, the defendant, was agent for the Atlantic Steampacket Company, and plaintiff paid 6l as deposit money for the passage of himself and his wife from Galway to American in a particular ship. A few days afterwards he told Mr. KENNEDY that he had received a letter from America recommending him to defer his departure from Ireland. Mr. KENNEDY had previously sent the 6l to the Company, but he wrote to them stating the circumstances of the case, and received from them a promise that they would give plaintiff a passage by another sip. The Company's vessels ceased sailing to America some time after this occurred, and, of course, plaintiff could not get his passage or passage money His Worship held that in any case defendant was not liable, as he only acted as the agent of the Company; but the case was similar to that of a man taking a railway ticket for a particular day, and then neglecting to avail himself of it. The company were not liable even by their voluntary promise, which was a matter of courtesy, and he should "nil" the case. Mr. KENNEDY said that as soon as the Company's steamers began to ply again, he would try and get plaintiff a passage to America.

Peter BRADY v. Matthew LOUGH, and Matthew LOUGH v. Peter BRADY

The first process was brought for recovery of the price of hay sold by plaintiff to defendant, and second for the recovery of the balance of a promissory note. The cases occupied some hours, and had to be finally left to arbitration. Mr. DOUGLAS and Mr. John M'CABE were the arbitrators appointed.

The Court adjourned at six o'clock.



It was a process to recover £6 loss and damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of the neglect of defendant. Plaintiff seized a cow under a civil bill decree, and his bailiff, Denis M'CABE, brought the cow to the pound at Redhills, and gave it in charge to defendant, who is pound keeper. The amount of the decree was £1 9s 9d. For the defence it was alleged that defendant is not the poundkeeper, and Mr. Knipe examined defendant, who stated that he resigned the post of poundkeeper two years ago, and that his son has since acted as poundkeeper; his son was drunk on the day M'CABE brought the cow to him, and he told M'CABE that he would not be responsible for the care of the cow; the pound was broken open on the same night, and the cow taken away; believes that the cow was taken away by the owner; the cow might have been worth £8. His Worship considered that, as defendant undertook to act for his son, he made himself liable, and gave a decree for £5 and costs.

Patrick HART v. Thomas KENNY

This was a process for £14 6s 9d, balance of a larger sum due for shop goods, for which defendant promised to pay. Plaintiff carries on business in Carrigallen and defendant and his son were in the employment of a Mr. SIMPSON--the latter being his steward. It was alleged that the defendant's son got goods on his father's behalf and also for Mr. SIMPSON, and that Mr. SIMPSON's bills were all paid. Defendant's son went to the West Indies in 1860, and defendant has left Mr. SIMPSON's employment. Plaintiff's shop assistant stated that a few days before the present Sessions defendant induced him to go from Carrigallen to Arvagh, on the understanding that Mr. WALPOLE, of Arvagh, hotel Keeper, whose daughter is married to defendant's son, would pay the amount claimed in the process and that when he went there Mr. WALPOLE said he would pay any money due by the son-in-law, but he would pay nothing due by defendant. The defence was that the sum claimed by plaintiff was due by defendant's son, and that defendant never had a passbook or account at all with plaintiff. Decree for plaintiff, with £1 costs.

Bernard REILLY v. Hutchinson G. HUMPHRYS

Mr. Knipe appeared for the plaintiff in this case, the process being brought to recover £1, wrongfully paid by plaintiff to defendant,the Medical Officer of the Ballyhaise Dispensary district, under the following circumstances:--Prior to the last Assizes plaintiff's two sons, labourers, were arrested on a charge of stabbing a young man named BRADY, also a labourer, in Mr. REILLY's shop at Butlersbridge, and were afterwards sent for trial to the Assizes, where one of them was sentenced to nine months', and the other to one month's imprisonment. Dr. Humphrys attended Brady on a Dispensary ticket, signed by Mr. Thomas Reilly, of Derragarra, and for some time Brady's life was in danger. Plaintiff was anxious to have his sons admitted to bail after their first arrest, but the magistrates would not accept bail until they received a certificate that Brady's life was out of danger. For granting this certificate, which he was entitled and bound to give, Dr. Humphreys charged the plaintiff, a wretched labourer, £1, although he had not to go out of his house to write it, although he was paid to attend Brady, as Dispensary Doctor of the district, and although he knew that he became a Crown witness from the minute he went to attend Brady as a Dispensary Doctor. The Doctor was paid a large salary for doing the very duty for which he extracted or extorted £1 from the plaintiff, and it was a dangerous practice to allow Dispensary Doctors to use their position for the purpose of extorting money from the friends of accused persons. These were the simple facts of the case, and, if it could be proved that Dr. Humphrys was entitled to the sum charged by him, as a medical fee, he (Mr. Knipe) would consent to a dismiss.[Discussion, examination of witnesses and cross-witnesses] (The Chairman stated) I am of opinion that a legal consideration was given, and that the fee was a regular medical fee I shall, therefore, dismiss the case without prejudice.

Giles SHAW v. Henry FARIS

Mr. Knipe applied for a postponement of the case....Mr. James KELLY, the plaintiff's agent, resisted the application, and said that it was "a most methodistical concocted transaction." Mr. Knipe alleged that KELLY sought to press the case through ill will towards his client. In February last Mr. FARIS, finding himself in difficulties, called a meeting of his creditors, in order to protect their interests. KELLY attended that meeting, which took place in Dublin, and, although he pretended to act as the friend of FARIS, he tried to induce the other creditors not to sign the deed of composition, giving them 10s in the pound. One of the creditors whom he thus sought to influence, Mr. HENSHAW, afterwards signed the deed.....The case was a vindictive one on the part of KELLY, for there was a messenger in the Court of bankruptcy at present in charge of FARIS's goods, and the object of KELLY was to send FARIS to gaol, and injure the other creditors. The Chairman said...The only question he had to try in the present was whether the sum claimed was due...Mr. Knipe said he had summoned Mr. SHAW to prove he directed KELLY not to go on with the case. Mr. KELLY deposed that he received no instructions of the kind, and produced a letter from Mr. SHAW leaving the matter entirely in his hands.

The Chairman said he would give a decree, with stay of execution for two months. In case Mr. SHAW promised to sign the deed of composition, he need not execute the decree. He regretted he had to give the decree, but the law compelled him to do so, and he did not want to prejudice the other creditors.

Mr. James Armstrong and Mr. M'Gauran urged, on the part of the plaintiff, tat this would nullify the decree, but his Worship refused to alter his decision.

William Clifford TUITE v. Malcolm M'CLOUD

Mr. James Armstrong applied for a postponement of the case, on behalf of defendant. The process was brought for recovery of a year's rent of a house attached to the distillery in Belturbet, and defendant, who alleged that he was not a tenant to plaintiff, but his partner in the distillery, has a bill in equity pending against plaintiff, which the hearing of the present case might prejudice. Mr. Knipe opposed the application on the part of plaintiff. Plaintiff, who stated that defendant was merely his book-keeper, and defendant, who stated that he was plaintiff's partner, having been examined, the Chairman postponed the case until next Quarter Sessions, as no decision which he would give at present would be satisfactory.


The process was brought for the recovery of £19, due for flour sold by the plaintiffs, the Messrs. Perry, of Claragh Mills, to defendant, Mr. William MAGINNIS, who carries on business as a baker and publican, in the town of Cavan, and for 15s for empty bags. Plaintiff's case was proved by their agent, Mr. GRAY. Defendant claimed an allowance for bag money, to which he considered himself entitled in accordance with the usages of the trade, and that he had not been furnished with any account of items. Mr. Gray agreed to allow bag money and discount to the amount of £2 0s 8½d. Defendant also objected that for one ton of flour which he purchased on the 15th of August, 1860, he was charged 30s over the market price at the time he purchased....This statement was denied by Mr. GRAY....The Chairman considered that defendant was entitled to the reduction, and a decree was given for the balance.

James GOODFELLOW, next of kin of Jane M'GOVERN, a miner, v. Adam LOWDEN

This was a process for £10, loss and damage sustained by Jane M'GOVERN, in consequence of defendant having wrongfully charged her with the robbery of £9. Defendant is a butcher, carrying on business in this town, and Jane M'GOVERN was a kind of servant in his employment. GOODFELLOW is Jane M'GOVERN's stepfather. The facts of the charge were given in our Petty Sessions' report of the 10th of Mary....The case having been fully heard, the Chairman gave a decree for £5.

Henry M'MAHON v. Patrick DONOHUE

The process was brought for the recovery of 1l, loss and damage sustained by defendant, in consequence of defendant having, contrary to good faith and his own promise, arrested him on a decree, based upon an I.O.U., for which defendant had paid interest to Christmas, 1861. Defendant, who appeared to be a "gombeen man," lent several sums of money to plaintiff, for which on the 11th of December, 1861, he passed two I.O.U.'s for a much larger sum than he received, on the understanding that no decree was to be taken against his person, he being a pensioner, yet on the day after...defendant processed him, and decreed him at the January Quarter Sessions, for the full amount of one of the I.O.U.s, under which decree he is still an inmate of Cavan gaol....Defendant had another process against plaintiff, for the Cootehill Sessions, which will be postponed, and his Worship stated that defendant could get rid of the decree given by letting plaintiff out of gaol.

The Sessions did not terminate until about six o'clock on Thursday evening. Nearly three hundred Civil Bills were disposed of, independent of the other cases. His Worship left Cavan at an early hour on yesterday morning, and opened the Quarter Sessions at Ballyconnel at ten o'clock. The Quarter Sessions at Cootehill commence on Monday.

April 12, 1862

CAVAN BOROUGH COURT (Before William Johnstone, Esq., J.P.)

At this Court on Saturday, Eliza TIMMONS was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, for having been drunk and disorderly, and using obscene and indecent language in the Main street of Cavan, on the evening of the 4th instant. The accused did not appear, and a warrant was ordered for her apprehension. There were no other cases for hearing.


Magistrates present:--Theophilus Thompson, Esq., Chairman; and William Babington, Esq.

Michael WYNNE v. Matthew FITZPATRICK

This was a summons for 10s. 6d, balance of £2 5s., wages earned by quarrying stones for defendant, at 1s. 3d. per load. Defendant and a Mr. REILLY proved that the agreement was only 1s. 1d. per load, and that defendant was paid in full,or over paid. The summons was "nilled."

Thomas LAWSON of Crossreagh, v. Michael BRADY, Robert ROONEY, and Thomas OWENS

This was a summons for wilfully cutting and otherwise damaging complainant's mearing fence. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for defendants. Complainant admitted that the fence had never been divided, and that the fence belonged as much to Mr. MERVYN, defendant's employer, as to himself. The case was dismissed.

Same v. Thomas OWENS

Complainant summoned defendant for having, on the 4th of April, forcibly trespassed on his land. The trespass consisted in the bringing of a horse to water in a lane. The defendant's employer, Mr. MERVYN, claims a right of way, and a portion of the land upon which the trespass was committed, and, as proceedings to try to question are pending in another Court, their Worships ruled that they had no jurisdiction in the matter, and dismissed the case.

John SMITH and Mary SMITH, his wife, v. Patrick COOKE

This summons was brought for the recovery of a passage ticket to America, unlawfully detained by defendant. The defendant was in America for some time, and whilst there boarded with a man named Bernard M'CABE, who is a relative of Mary SMITH, then Mary CORR. On his return to Ireland, he became acquainted with Mary CORR, and informed her and her uncle of how their relative in America was circumstanced. The uncle wrote toM'CABE, asking him to pay Mary CORR's passage to America. Some time lately a letter came to defendant's father, enclosing a passage ticket from Liverpool to America for Mary CORR and defendant, the money having been paid in America by M'CABE. In the interim, however, Mary CORR changed her name and condition, having got married to SMITH, and resigned all notion of emigrating. She was anxious to get her share of the passage ticket from defendant, and defendant was willing to let her have it, but as they were joined in the ticket, although not in matrimony, he did not understand how he could give her the part to which she was entitled and retain his own. He offered to take her to America with him, but her husband would not consent to this arrangement on any terms. The Court were at first of opinion that they ought to impound the ticket until they had communicated with the agent at Liverpool, but as Mary would not go to America, and defendant means to go on Friday next, they thought it best to give him his ticket, and the Clerk promised to write to Mr. CONNELL, the agent at Liverpool, to ascertain in what way Mary SMITH can benefit by her share of the ticket. The summons was then "nilled."

Michael CONNOLLY v. Richard HICKS

Complainant summoned defendant for having closed up a pass on his farm at Deggan. He stated that the pass was necessary to him, as it led to portions of his farm which he could not otherwise reach; that he had been in possession of the pass since 1859; and that defendant, who was only a con acre tenant, blocked up the pass without his consent. HICKS and the woman from whom he holds the conacre, proved that complainant was not entitled to the pass blocked up, and that a lane which runs directly through his farm is a sufficient pass for him, and the only one to which he is entitled. The case was dismissed.

Patrick BRADY v. James MALONY

This was a summons for £1 7s 6d, ten days horse hire due by defendant. The amount of the debt was admitted, but defendant said that he was to have the use of plaintiff's horse at 2s 9d per day until he finished his ploughing; he had all his ploughing done except what could be done in a few days if the weather cleared up, and he was willing to pay plaintiff as soon as that was done. As plaintiff partly admitted this version of the agreement, the Court dismissed the case, recommending defendant to get his ploughing finished within a reasonable time, and to pay plaintiff as soon as it was finished.

Mary KEMP v. William KEMP

Complainant and defendant are husband and wife. Defendant deserted his wife and children a few years ago,and went to America, from which country he returned lately, and acted so violently towards his wife that she was obliged to apply for protection. Mr. Babington took her informations, and had the defendant bound over to keep the peace pending the trial, as well as to attend at the Court to answer the charge against him. It appeared that during the absence of her husband in America, complainant had maintained herself and children by her own industry, having been employed as fowl woman at Farnham for two years where she bore a most excellent character. On the night of the 31st instant, defendant struck her three times, and on the following night he armed himself with a razor and a bottle, and threatened to take her life, and she alleged that she feared he would murder her. Defendant alleged that complainant struck him twice before he struck her, and that he had no intention of injuring her. He had no evidence to support his statement.

The Chairman said that defendant had acted in a gross, cowardly, unmanly manner, and should be taught that the law was stronger than his right arm. It was gross cowardice and cruelty for a strong man to strike a helpless woman, particularly his own wife. The case was the worst of the kind which had come before the Court for a long time, and the defendant should enter into bail to keep the peace towards his wife and the rest of her Majesty's subjects for seven years--himself in the sum of £30, and two sureties in 20l each, or be imprisoned, and kept to hard labour, for the space of six months. Defendant was allowed until Monday next to find bail.

Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., J.P., v. James TEEVAN

Mr. Thompson, on being sworn, said that the defendant was a person for whom he entertained a great regard, but he felt constrained to bring the summons, as defendant kept a large and dangerous dog within twenty yards of the public road. He summoned defendant on a former occasion relative to the same dog, and the Court made an order to have the dog destroyed, but defendant having promised to banish or chain up the dog, the order was rescinded. Defendant lives at the four miles stone on the Castlesaunderson road, and he (Mr. Thompson) occasionally brings a pointer dog, for which he has to pay £3 per annum license, along that road, for exercise. When passing along the road lately, defendant's dog, which was in the field adjoining the road, ran out, and attacked the pointer; he called to defendant's son, who was in the field, and ran out, and threw stones at the dog, which was about to turn upon him when he tried to save the pointer. On another occasion he (Mr. Thompson) had to stop on the public road until defendant's dog was called off. Three times within the fortnight he had been interrupted in this manner, and it was too bad that such a violent and dangerous dog should be kept so near the road, after the Court had made an order against. He had no desire to press for any fine, but he thought it necessary for the public safety that the dog should be destroyed.

Defendant said he had no defence to make; he merely attended in obedience to the summons, but he would engage to not allow the dog near the public road in future.

Mr. Babington said that that promise had been given and broken on a former occasion, and made an order for the destruction of the dog.

Patrick SMITH v. John SMITH, Owen Patrick REILLY, John BRADY, and others.

This was a charge of waylay and assault, postponed from the previous Court day. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for two of the defendants, but as there was only one magistrate (Mr. Babington) present when the case was called, it had to be postponed until next Court day--defendants to be admitted to bail.

The Guardians of the Poor of Cavan Union v. Anne M'MAHON and Mary Anne JONES.

The defendants were paupers in the Cavan Workhouse, and were charged with having used obscene and profane language in the Workhouse. During the sitting of the Board of Guardians on Tuesday, the young ladies had an Amazonian combat in the laundry--resulting from a discussion upon their relative mental and personal attractions....A pauper named Bridget HAULTON proved to the indecent language. The Porter proved to the other facts, and put in a plea for mercy. Mr. Babington sentenced the defendants to 48 hours' imprisonment, and said that any repetition of the offence would be dealt with more severely, and he had been thus lenient with them in consequence of the present being their first offence, and the case the first of the kind heard by him.

Sub Constable GLYNN v. Hugh M'DERMOTT

The summons was for breach of the Sabbath, defendant having been caught setting potatoes on Sunday, the 30th ult. Defendant said he was setting the potatoes for a poor widow, who had three children, and was unable to pay a man for doing so, and he had to work for his own living on week days. He was fined in the costs.

A charge of larceny against Jane HARRISON was postponed until next Court day, there being only one magistrate present.

The Court then rose.


(From our Correspondent)

These Sessions commenced on Monday, the 7th instant, before P. M. MURPHY, Esq., Q.C. On the bench was Samuel R. MOOREHEAD, Esq., William MURRAY, Esq., J.P., and _________PERRIN, Esq., R.M.

There were 310 civil bills, 10 ejectments, and only 2 crown cases.

Mary M'CAUL, a woman fully three score and ten was found guilty of stealing a shawl from the shop of Jane ARMSTRONG, in Kingscourt. His Worship addressed the prisoner in a very feeling speech on the lamentable sight of a woman of her years in the dock on such a charge, and sentenced her to 6 months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Jane CAROLAN, Michael CAROLAN, Margaret KEGLEY, and Bridget KEGLEY were indicted for larceny of 20 stone of flax at Eatchey, the property of one Alexander NELSON.

This case occupied the greater part of the day, and resulted in the acquittal of the prisoners, the Jury being doubtful of the possibility of identifying flax. His Worship in his charge to the Jury related the case which was tried under the late Lord Norbury in Kells, where a man was reported to have sworn to his goose in a giblet pie.

The only civil bill possessing any interest was ANDREWS v. WALLACE. The plaintiff is a bill discounter in Capel street, Dublin; the defendant, Mr. Thomas WALLACE, of this county. It appeared a Mr. NAGLE, an auctioneer in Dublin, had been employed by Mr. Wallace's daughter to value and sell the stock of drapery in her houses in Cootehill and Dundalk, that for such services Mr. NAGLE claimed £30, together with a 12 10s, costs incurred by him on behalf of Miss Wallace with a Mr. O'MEARA, a Solicitor, in Dublin, on behalf of plaintiff (Mr. ANDREWS). Mr. Nagle was examined and swore that he came to Cootehill at the request of Miss Wallace to advertise and sell her stock, and remained in Cootehill for four or five days; that his agreement was 10 per cent, on public sales, and 5 per cent on private; that in opposition to his own interests he recommended Miss Wallace not to sell by auction, but to sell to her own sister, and take her father as security; and that he would get the bills negotiated, and they would be able to continue in business; tat he got an acceptance from Mr. Wallace for £200, but on inquiry he found Mr. Wallace's property was in the Incumbered Estates Court, and that the docket of Bankruptcy had been struck against Miss Wallace...

Miss Wallace was ably cross-examined by Mr. M'Gauran, who conducted the defendant's case with his wonted ability, but her evidence was not in the slightest shaken; indeed the apparent cleverness of the "great Dublin lawyer," plaintiff's witness, Mr. NAGLE, and defendant's witness was the topic of conversation the remainder of the evening.

April 19, 1862


Magistrates present:--William Babington, Esq., Chairman and Joseph Story, Esq.


Mr. John Armstrong applied to the Court under the following circumstances:--A poor farmer named John MULSTEEN, who resides at Crott, in the county of Longford, about seven miles from Crossdoney, had a cow stolen from him on the night of the 4th April; on the following morning, shortly after missing the cow, he went, with his nephew, to Crossdoney, in search of the cow; when within a short distance of the town, he met a man named Felix BRADY driving the cow away from the fair; he asked BRADY some questions about the cow, and BRADY said it belonged to a man name MAGUIRE; he also told MULSTEEN's nephew that MAGUIRE bought the cow for £6 15s at the fair; MULSTEEN then claimed the cow, upon which BRADY went back with him to the Fair Green, where they afterwards met MAGUIRE; MAGUIRE could not tell the name of the person from whom he bought the cow; and the police, on hearing of the matter, took the cow into custody; Mr. Story, J.P., shortly afterwards came into Crossdoney, and the police laid the facts of the case before him; it then transpired that the price given for the cow by MAGUIRE was £3 and not £6 15s, as stated by BRADY, although the cow exhibited no symptoms of (illegible), was four years old and expected to calve in May; it appeared that the sale did not take place in the "open market," that it was effected at a very early hour, and that MAGUIRE, who is a cattle dealer, and must have known that the price given by him was not half the value of the cow, had the cow sent from the Fair Green almost immediately after purchasing it...The Chairman considered the sale a most suspicious one, and only refrained from sending BRADY and MAGUIRE for trial at once on account of their previous character. He would postpone the case for a week, but declined to make any order relative to the cow. Mr. Story then said he would take upon himself the responsibility of giving the cow to MULSTEEN; but it was finally arranged that the cow should be given up to him on entering into recognizances to prosecute, and lodging £3 in Court, which he agreed to do.


Sub Inspector NAPIER applied to the Chairman (Mr. Story having left Court) to have an order of the Court rescinded. Mr. Thompson, J.P., summoned a farmer named TEEVAN for keeping a dangerous dog at large in the vicinity of the public road....a warrant was issued for the destruction of the dog. TEEVAN subsequently applied to Mr. Thompson, who consented to have the order rescinded if the Chairman had no objection to do so, but was unable to attend, as he was ill. The Chairman declined to interfere in the matter; he decided the case upon the sworn testimony of Mr. Thompson, and although Mr. Thompson was willing to have the dog spared, the result might be that some other person would suffer from the ferocity of the dog.


Patrick REILLY, James SMITH, and two other young men, were charged, on remand, with having assaulted Patrick SMITH, on the 25th of March. The facts of the case were given previously....The prosecutor did not swear as "strongly" against them as he did in his informations--his positive identification charged to "the best of his belief." By Mr. Armstrong's advice, however, the accused pleaded guilty, and were each fined 5s.


Patrick REILLY was charged with having deserted his wife, and obliged her to become chargeable to the Cavan Union. REILLY and his wife were married on the 29th of June last. He is a butter buyer, and her relatives were opposed to the marriage, which was a runaway one. Some disappointment in the matter of the bride's "fortune" appeared to make the marriage unhappy (the rest is illegible)


Sub Constable M'GOWAN charged a young lad named Thomas MURRAY with fishing with an illegal net in the "Station" river, near Stradone. MURRAY's uncle said the defendant was an orphan, rather foolish, and did not know that he was committing a breach of the law by fishing. The Chairman said the net produced was of a most destructive kind, and did not show much simplicity on the part of the "orphan" who had left himself liable to a penalty of £10, but, as it was his first offence, he would let him off on payment of the costs and forfeiture of the net, but any future cases would be punished more severely.

A summons for trespass and two undefended civil bills were the only other cases before the Court.


(From the Fermanagh Reporter)

On Monday last Mr. Richard GIBSON, jun., was elected Petty Sessions Clerk for the Enniskillen District, in the room of Mr. David BIGHAM, resigned.

Mr. KEYS, formerly post master of Enniskillen, writes to us from Liverpool to acknowledge the receipt of 10s restitution money though the Rev. Thomas SMOLLEN, C.C., of this town, and adds "This is not the only time I have had to thank that gentleman for similar services rendered to me."


Colonel John Stewart WOOD, C.B., Deputy Inspector General, has returned to town from a tour of inspection in the counties of Cork and Waterford, and resumed his duties yesterday at the Castle.

The following transfers of officers have been ordered by Sir Henry John BROWNRIGG, C.B., Inspector General, to take effect from the 1st prox., vix,:--

Second Sub Inspector Crosbie Maurice HARVEY, form the district of Kildysart, county Clare, to Loughrea, county Galway.

Second Sub Inspector John F. CRAICE, from the district of Dunfanaghy, county of Donegal, to Newport, county Tipperary.

Second Sub Inspector William Somerset KOOGH, from Newport, Tipperary, to the district of Kildysart, county Clare.

Third Sub Inspector John BRYNE (sic), from Loughrea, county Galway, to the district of Dunfanaghy, county Donegal.

Leave of absence has been granted to Thomas H. CARR, Esq., Sub Inspector at Mullingar, from the 10th last until the 4th proximo.

Sub Inspector Maurice Collingwood ELRINGTON has arrived in Dublin, from Slane, county Meath, on leave of absence.


CARRICK-ON-SHANNON, April 15--On the 13th instant Patrick KELLY, of Lisdakey, a farmer, heard noises outside his house, and on going to the door saw several men in a field opposite, all armed. KELLY's dog ran at them, which one of the party shot. They then moved towards the door (which KELLY shut), firing shots. They broke several panes of glass in the house. In the morning a threatening notice was found posted on the door, threatening KELLY with death if he did not keep his tongue quiet. It appears he has latterly been in the habit of speaking strongly against any Molly Maguire movement.

April 26, 1862


On Thursday evening, the Rev. Nason BROWN, son of Mr. Edward BROWN, Cootehill, delivered a lecture in the Moravian meeting house, Cootehill, subject--"The Deluge and Science." The attendance was good. The Rev. James BONES, P.M., presided. The lecturer gave Godwin's and other theories as to the date of the flood, and contended that science and divine revelation were not antagonistic, but, on the contrary, quite agreed. On the motion of Rev. ______BAXTER, Moravian Minister, a vote of thanks was unanimously passed to the lecturer. The meeting was closed by singing the evening hymn.


Magistrates present:--Theophilus Thompson, Esq., Chairman; Wm. Babington, Esq., and W. M. Hickson, Esq., R.M.

Michael COMISKY summoned Michael SMITH for £2, amount of wages which defendant agreed to pay him for working five days each week from the 14th of January last to the 11th of May next--defendant having turned him away without just cause. The defence was that plaintiff broke the agreement by absenting himself from defendant's service, and working for other parties. The defence was only partially sustained, and the Court gave a decree for £1, without costs.


James BRADY summoned James M'AVAY for having stolen a quantity of turf from a bog at Corrohoogan. Mr. Knipe appeared for complainant. It appeared that complainant holds a portion of bog, at a considerable distance from his house, and had there a large quantity of good, dry turf--the dryest in the bog; the lot of bog adjoining his is held by defendant's master and another man; for some time past his turf had been mysteriously decreasing in size, and he at length found a quantity of what he believed to be his turf in a creel which defendant had filled at the bog; from this and other circumstances, he considered that defendant was the thief. Some of the turf was produced. Witnesses.were examined for the defence. The Court dismissed the case on the ground that although there might be a great deal of suspicion, there was no direct proof against defendant.


The case of John MULSTEEN, of Crott, county of Longford, whose cow was stolen on the 4th instant, and purchased at the fair of Crossdoney for £3, by a cattle dealer named MAGUIRE, was again before the Court. The facts of the case were given in our last impression. Mr. Knipe appeared for MAGUIRE, and examined on his behalf Mr. John NAYLOR, of Arvagh, who proved to some facts relative to the sale. The case was postponed on the application of MULSTEEN, whose solicitor, Mr. John Armstrong, was unable to attend in consequence of the death of his son.


John GAVIN was brought up in custody, charged with a violent assault upon John PLUNKETT. GAVIN was formerly a servant in one of the hotels in this town, but some time ago was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for having, with others, committed a desperate and unprovoked assault upon a Dundalk mason then working in Cavan, and at the trial the Chairman (Mr. Thompson) stated that he had been credibly informed that GAVIN was a member of an illegal society. GAVIN's imprisonment terminated a few weeks ago, and since then he obtained employment on the Cavan and Clones Railway, under John PLUNKETT, one of the "gangers" on the line. On Saturday evening he invited PLUNKETT to take tea with him. PLUNKETT accepted the invitation, and brought with him a man named John M'GAHARAN, who is also employed on the railway. They remained at GAVIN's lodgings for about a quarter of an hour, GAVIN and his wife being the only other parties present. As they were going down stairs, GAVIN struck PLUNKETT on the head with a poker, cutting him in a shocking manner. Accompanied by M'GAHARAN, he went to the police barrack, and, his head having been dressed, his informations were taken before Dr. Babington, upon which GAVIN was arrested. PLUNKETT appeared to be suffering greatly from the wound in his head. GAVIN alleged that the blow was intended for M'GAHARAN, who endeavoured to take improper liberties with his wife. It appeared that GAVIN's wife had applied for a summons against M'GAHARAN, but was too late, and that at the police barrack M'GAHARAN said he thought the blow was intended for him. M'GAHARAN denied that he had acted improperly towards GAVIN's wife, and neither he or PLUNKETT could assign any reason for the assault. The Court sent the case for trial--bail to be accepted as soon as PLUNKETT is pronounced out of danger--the prisoner in £20, and two sureties in £10 each.


James CURTIS of Cootehill, was charged with the robbery of a silver watch, the property of Edward HAGARTY, of Drung, under the following circumstances:--On the night of the 15th of April, at about eleven o'clock, the prosecutor was walking between the corner of Bridge-street and the Market-house, when he met the prisoner, who, though unacquainted with him, spoke to him, and walked along with him; after a while the prisoner asked him to go to a public house, and get some drink; the prosecutor replied that he had no money, when the prisoner said "you have a watch;" prosecutor replied that he had, upon which the prisoner put his hand upon the pocket in which prosecutor kept his watch, for the purpose, as the prosecutor though, of ascertaining if he had a watch; immediately after doing so the prisoner ran away, and the prosecutor found that his watch had been stolen; he informed the police of the robbery, and the prisoner was arrested in Bridge-street about an hour afterwards. The watch was not found upon him, and he at first gave a false name to the police. Neither the prisoner nor prosecutor were drunk on the night in question, for Constable MAGUIRE, who arrested the prisoner, saw them together a few minutes before the robbery. The prisoner's father called upon the prosecutor before the sitting of the Court and told him if he "settled" the case, he had no doubt the watch would be forthcoming.-- Sub Inspector NAPIER produced the watch, which was identified by the prosecutor, and stated that it was given to him that morning by an old woman, who alleged that she found it, and hoped he would not prevent her of getting a reward from the magistrates. This woman, who gave her name as Mary BANNON, was produced, and stated that she found the watch in a heap of stones in a lane off Bridge-street on Saturday, "in all the rain." It turned out on examination, however, that the watch could not have been so exposed to the weather, as the works, &c., were quite dry. The prisoner, who is a private in the Cavan Militia, alleged that he was drunk on the night of the robbery, and did not remember having been in the prosecutor's company. The Court sent the case for trial--the prisoner to be admitted to bail--himself in the sum of £20, and two sureties in £10 each.

There were only two other cases, both of trifling nature, before the Court.


DOUBLE MURDER IN LONGFORD--APRIL 21--On yesterday a man named CORRIGAN and his wife, residing midway between Drumlish and Ballinamuck, in this county, were shot by an assassin who has not been yet rendered amenable to justice. The cold blooded murder is presumed to have originated in that which has been the cause of so many outrages in the same locality--land. CORRIGAN was married to a daughter of a man named MANNING, the bailiff of the Ballinamuck estate, which is the property of the Hon. King HARMAN. A short time since MANNING procured some land from which a tenant had been evicted. CORRIGAN was shot within a few yards of his own door, at about eight o'clock in the morning. The assassin then stepped forward to the house, and deliberately shot the wife. The poor woman is not dead, but there is no hope of her recovery. Her depositions have been taken by Henry CRAWFORD, Esq., R.M. The Constabulary have arrested several persons. Mrs. CORRIGAN has named the man who shot her. CORRIGAN was a respectable man. His body was found in the garden before his house--Mail. [A man named ROSS was arrested on Tuesday and identified by Mrs. CORRIGAN, who expired on Wednesday.]


AT ENNISKILLEN PETTY SESSIONS on Monday, the only business was a large number of loan fund cases.

CHURCHWARDENS--Hazlitt BETTY, Esq., and Samuel CLARKE, Esq., have been appointed Churchwardens for Enniskillen, for the current year.

DEATH FROM A RUNAWAY HORSE--Yesterday, an inquest was held in this town, on the body of William SCOTT, of Mullylevin, who came by his death through attempting, as is understood, to arrest his young horse, while attempting to run away. It is believed that he was taking the winkers off the horse; that the animal started; and that he tried to arrest him by putting his arms round his neck. At all events he was thrown down and killed. It is said that the horse had run away twice or thrice before, and perhaps sufficient caution was not used by the deceased, who was a man advanced in life, in handling him. The verdict was accidental death.--Fermanagh Reporter.

DEATH OF COLONEL MICHAEL DOHENY--Colonel Michael DOHENY, one of the well known Irish patriots who took a prominent part in the unsuccessful revolution of 1848, expired last Tuesday night, April 1st, of intermittent fever, at his residence in Eighteenth-street, South Brooklyn. Mr. DOHENY had been ailing only a few days, and his death was quite unexpected, inasmuch as the fever by which he was prostrated was not regarded by his friends as of a very dangerous character; but on Tuesday evening the malady assumed a fatal form, and he sank rapidly, expiring after a brief struggle. The deceased was a native of Cashel, County Tipperary, Ireland, and came of highly respectable parentage.

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.