Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan

August 2, 1862


(Before William Babington, Esq.)

John M'INROE was sworn in as a sub constable, and Thomas M'CREADY and Michael M. (illegible) as volunteers for the Cavan Militia.

Miss Anne M'GAURAN summoned Mr. Michael KIERNAN, photographic artist for recovery of apartments held by him as weekly tenant in her home, No. 7 Church-street, Cavan--tenancy having terminated by notice to quit and demand for possession. The notice to quit was produced. Plaintiff stated that she let the apartments for a week, and at the expiration of that time she asked defendant to leave, but he refused to do so.

Mr. Knipe (who appeared for defendant) said--You are very anxious to get rid of his man, Miss M'GAURAN?

Plaintiff--You have no idea how troublesome he is, Mr. Knipe.

Mr. Knipe--Indeed, I have not; but I have an idea of how troublesome and unaccommodating you are as a landlady, for I have it from him. On what day did he take your apartments?

Plaintiff--On a Saturday.

Defendant said it would be idle to suppose he would have incurred the expense of erecting a photographic tent, advertising, &c., had he intended to remain only a week in Cavan. When taking the apartments he informed plaintiff that he would probably require them for six or seven weeks, and she seemed very well pleased. The rooms were pretty well furnished at that time, but subsequently the furniture was removed under a Quarter Sessions decree, yet, to keep plaintiff from grumbling he raised the rent from 7s to 10 s a week.

Mr. Knipe said he believed that when the case would be gone into, he could show there was a specific letting for seven weeks. At present the case should be dismissed, for the notice was informal. The notice would not expire until Tuesday, whereas it should expire on a Saturday--the day on which the tenancy commenced.

His Worship informed plaintiff that she should serve another notice and summons, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Miss M'GAURAN had a similar summons against a man name John FITZPATRICK. The notice was correct in this case, and a decree to possession was given--defendant to be allowed seven days to procure another lodging.

Patrick BOYLAN summoned Rose RUDDON for £1 12s 6d, wages earned by plaintiff's son, ploughing and harrowing for defendant. Plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister, and the latter denied that she owed the amount claimed, but refused to be sworn. She entered into a long account of transactions which took place between them, and alleged that plaintiff's son gave her a portion of the ploughing gratuitously, which he denied. She succeeded in reducing the amount claimed by 5s, and a decree was given for £1 7s 6d.

_______CARROLL summoned James BRADY for the trespass of fourteen head of cattle on his pasture. A question relative to a disputed pass arose in the case, and as the litigants are tenants of Edward SAUNDERSON, Esq., J.P., the case was postponed for the report of his bailiff, Mr. BEATTY.

Andrew SMITH was fined 1s and costs for the trespass of a horse on Mr. Peter BRADY's pasture.

Patrick BROGAN processed Thomas SHERIDAN for £1 15s, cash lent, and for which plaintiff held defendant's I.O.U. Defendant did not appear, and the debt and service of civil bill having been proved, a decree was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

Mr. Robert Henry MERVYN processed William CARMICHAEL for £1 12s 7d, and Philip RAHILL for £1 19 10½d, amount of shop goods for which defendants promised to pay. The cases were undefended, and decrees were given in each.

Sub Constable BELFORD summoned Robert DALY for having allowed a dog to wander, unlogged and unmuzzled, in the public streets of Cavan. The summons was "nilled", as the constable stated that the defendant had destroyed the dog.

Some assault cases were postponed, as it requires two magistrates to adjudicate in such cases.

The Court then rose.


On the 25th instant, at Ballinagh, Anna Maria, the beloved wife of T. S. O'REILLY, Esq., M.D., after a long illness, which she bore with the most exemplary resignation and Christian patience. The demise of this amiable and gifted young lady in the bloom and promise of her life has cast a deep shade of sorrow over very many friends. Attractive, accomplished and highly esteemed, and in the possession of every happiness, her untimely departure from amongst us affords another illustration of the words "In the midst of life we are in death."

On the 26th instant, at Killyjardon, county Donegal, the residence of her son, the Rev. Alexander Sinclair HUMPHRYS, Elizabeth, relict of the Rev. Thomas ROLLESTON, aged 76 years.

SENTENCE ON MR. HERDMAN--Belfast, Saturday Morning--William HERDMAN, who was last evening found guilty of the wilful murder of John HERDMAN on the 15th of May last, was this morning sentenced to be executed on Tuesday, the 2nd of September.

THE MURDER OF WILGAR--Belfast, Saturday Morning--Upon the application of the Attorney-General the trial of WARD for the murder of WILGAR has been postponed till the next assizes.

August 9, 1862


(Before Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P.)

James BRADY v. Philip CAHILL

There were cause and cross cause in this case, both arising out of a pass dispute, which was before the Court on last Monday, and postponed for the report of Mr. BEATTY. That report spoke but little for the feeling existing between the litigants, and His Worship dismissed both summonses, with a recommendation to Messrs. CAHILL and BRADY to endeavour to live peaceably with each other.

Sub-Constable M'PARTLAN v. Patrick DRUM

A charge that defendant was found drunk in the public street of Ballyhaise. It was his first offence, and he was fined only 6d and costs.

Robert Henry MERVYN v. Joseph PRATT

A process for 9s 6d, amount of shop goods. There was no appearance on the part of defendant, and a decree was given for the sum claimed.

Richard MAYNE v. Thomas LEDDY

An undefended process for amount of settled account. Decree for sum claimed.

Patrick KENNY v. Peter GAFFNEY

A similar process (amount 12s 6d), with like result.


James GAFFNEY, Patrick GAFFNEY, and others, charged with assault on the last Court day, again appeared, the case having been postponed in consequence of only one magistrate being present. The case was now "nilled," on the application of Sub-Inspector NAPIER, who stated that from inquiry made by him, he was of opinion that the ends of justice would not be injured by the withdrawal of the prosecution.

There were two other cases of assault, brought by the police of Crosskeys and Ballyhaise, but as there were not two magistrates present, as required by the Act, they were postponed until next Court day.

There were no other cases for hearing.


(Before Captain Phillips, J.P., and Thomas F. Knipe, Esq., J.P.

M'CABE v. TUITE and Co.

This case, the facts of which have been already reported, was again brought forward. The complainant sought to recover 16s car hire. Mr. M'LEOD was the person who engaged the cars, and by him it was alleged that they were had for the use of the firm, of which he claimed to be a member.

Their Worships gave a decree for the amount claimed, with costs.


John McHUGH summoned Daniel REILLY for £1 10s 6d, earned at breaking stones as per contract, at 1s 6d per ton, or cart, which held one ton. Part was measured by tape, and the remainder drawn away, or the fourth of a ton being allowed on each cart. The defendant positively swore that he had settled with him up to the 20th of March, on which date there was 1s 6d only due, since which time an entry was kept of all the stone drawn, and he had him over paid 7s 6d on what he had got from him--viz., £3 17s 3d. The entries made, however, were only from what the boys told witness; he did not know it of his own knowledge.

The Bench gave a decree for the amount claimed.

Defendant--I will appeal, gentlemen, for it is unjust.

Chairman--Do so.

Frank ROORK summoned Michael BLAKE for £3 7s 6d wages for the half year commencing May last, the defendant having turned him out of his service on the 28th ult.

Mr. Knipe appeared for the defendant, and said he was forced to go to Cavan on business for Castle Saunderson. He is the steward at the Castle, and was, in fact, so tormented with servant boys that the man did not know how to act. The complainant was constantly out at night, and Mr. BLAKE had been threatened to be beaten; he was so annoyed that he was afraid of his life. However, he was quite willing to pay three months wages to complainant if the bench would discharge him. He had offered to take that amount.

A decree was given for £1 13s 9d and costs.


Sub Constable EGAN summoned James COFFIELD, of Bawnboy, for furiously driving a horse and cart through the public streets on 31st ult., and for being drunk at same time.

EGAN stated that on the 31st his attention was drawn to the defendant driving from the end of the bridge round the lawn in such a manner that he endangered both his own life and the public safety in general. There were others on the car equally drunk.

Mr. Luke REILLY, T.C., appeared, and stated the defendant was sorry for what occurred, and submitted to whatever the Court would order.

Mr. Knipe said he was looking at the transaction, and the man was more like a madman than any one else. He was in such a state he ordered his horse to be put to livery till they were in a fit state to proceed.

There were several other cases of road nuisance by the Constabulary, and some few others; but none of any importance were heard, when the Court rose.

August 16, 1862


We regret to announce that letters have reached his friends in this country communicating the melancholy intelligence of the death of Dr. William Henry BRICE, of her Majesty's 28th Regiment, which occurred on the 2nd July last, after a brief illness of dysentery, at the Sanitarium, Poorundhur, Bombay, of which institution the deceased was in medical charge. Dr. BRICE, who had just completed his thirtieth year, was the second son of our respected townsman, Wm. Moore BRICE, Esq., and had served through the entire Crimean campaign with the 28th Regiment, which corps he subsequently accompanied to India. The lamented deceased was greatly beloved by the officers and men of his Regiment, and was interred with military honours at Poorundhur on the evening of the day following his decease.


Magistrates present:--Theophulis Thompson (Chairman); Nathaniel Montgomery, and Wm. Smith, Esqrs.

Mr. Michael KIERNAN v. Mr. Edward M'CREANOR

The plaintiff, a photographic artist, summoned the defendant for £1 19s. 11d., the balance of £2, alleged to be due him for instructions in the photographic art. Plaintiff deposed that he was introduced to defendant by Mr. O'BRIEN; took some pictures for him for which he did not intend to charge; defendant expressed a wish to receive instructions in photography, and he (plaintiff) told him that his usual charge was two guineas; defendant attended at his residence ten or twelve times and was most diligent in receiving instructions; got two guineas from other persons to whom he had given similar instructions; when he demanded payment defendant objected to his claim, and would only give him 10s for the pictures which he intended to have made him a compliment of.

Mr. M'CREANOR repudiated ever having entered into any agreement with the plaintiff, and denied that he had received any value in the shape of instructions.

Chairman (to plaintiff)--Do you swear that Mr. M'CREANOR attended at your residence and received instructions after you told him your usual charge was two guineas?

Plaintiff--I do; and I have a witness who was receiving instructions at the same time to prove that he did.

Mr. John MURPHY proved that he received instructions from the plaintiff for which he paid him two guineas; Defendant was receiving instructions at the same time and paid more attention than witness; on one occasion witness remarked that he wished he was as far advanced as defendant, when the latter replied that he was only a pupil.....Mr. O'BRIEN was produced by the defendant and proved that he introduced the parties to each other, and heard the plaintiff say that he felt himself under compliments to the defendant, and that he would be most happy to instruct Mr. M'CREANOR...never heard of any agreement between them; plaintiff offered through him to take £1 in lieu of his claim....

Chairman--We have it on the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant partook of instruction after it being intimated to him that the usual charge was two guineas, and he himself admitted he was a pupil.

The court granted a decree for £1 9s. 11d. and costs, giving the defendant credit for the 10s. he had paid.

There were a few cases of summonses for possession of premises, in which the court granted decrees.

After disposing of a few unimportant cases the court adjourned.


Before Captain M. Phillips, Esq., J.P., and John Rogers, Esq., J.P.


Mary REILLY summoned Patrick NOON for 3s 3d earned by washing for defendant.

Defendant did not deny the claim, but alleged he was to pay at the end of six months--not sooner. By the special advice of the Bench, however, he paid the amount, with 1s 6d costs.


William WINSLOW v. Thomas NOONE

The complainant stated that he holds a farm along side defendant, but resides at some distance himself, and five heifers and a mare, the property of defendant seemed to have a particular taste for complainant's meadow in Mullinavaragh. On the 3rd of August he last seen them in it, and claimed 3s for their visit.

The Bench gave an order for the amount claimed with costs.

John CONNELL summoned Thomas HINCH, jun., for maliciously tresspassing on complainant's premises, and forcing a pass thereon.

The complainant handed a letter to the Bench from Mr. James JOHNSTON, under agent to Lord Lanesborough, which stated, by the direction of Mr. LITTON, he had visited the premises where the tresspass was committed, and he was of opinion that no pass should be allowed.

The defendant stated he was no tenant of Lord Lanesborough--he was quite independent in himself; he had a very great respect for Mr. JOHNSTON, yet he differed from him with regard to the pass. He objected to his decision. Let the Bench either fine him, or dismiss the case, as they thought proper.

Chairman--We will refer the matter to Mr. JOHNSTON, and let him report to us on the subject. At present we would be very much prejudiced by his letter.


Patrick M'MAOUS, a stout, bull necked young fellow rather well dressed for one of the labouring class of farm labourers, appeared to answer to a summons for being drunk on the public streets of Belturbet, on the 7th inst.

Constable STEELE stated he was on duty on the fair evening in Bridge Street, and the defendant having been raising a row with some others in FITZPATRICK's public house, FITZPATRICK put him out; but he seemed not to be satisfied with what he had got, and from his subsequent conduct on the street, he considered it his duty to arrest him.

The Bench coincided with the constable's opinion by imposing a fine of 5s and costs, but at the request of defendant, on condition of his keeping sober, he was allowed a week to pay it.


John LUNNY summoned Rose M'CANN and Roseana M'CANN for an assault. The disputants live in a part of town which got its name in the good old time when the music of the spinning wheels and weavers' shuttles were to be heard in every cabin, but Weavers Lane is now only a momento of Belturbet half a century ago.

One of the sitting magistrates, having more knowledge of the case than was given in evidence, said the complainant had beaten the defendants in a most unmerciful manner.

The Chairman considered there was faults on both sides, and dismissed the summons.

The other business before the Court was of no importance.


Carrick-On-Shannon, July--On last night a threatening notice was found posted on the door of Thomas M'GIVNEY, publican and baker, residing at Drumkeering, threatening him with death if he had not leave the town. It appears he took the house in which he now carries on business after a man named DARK had been evicted from it, which is the cause assigned for this outrage.

August 23, 1862


COW STEALING--On Wednesday last a cow, supposed to have been stolen from Oldcastle, was sold in this town. Sub-Inspector NAPIER having received some private information, immediately called on the purchases (sic), and ascertained that the cow had been sold much below her value. He very properly informed the purchases that it was necessary he should assist in endeavoring to restore the cow to her owner, and also to have the thief arrested. The owner of the cow, with a constable, left Oldcastle in the direction of Cavan, the purchaser left Cavan in company with a constable for Oldcastle, and the vendor of the cow went another road; but the most extraordinary part of the matter is, that the owner and the Oldcastle constable, the purchaser and the Cavan constable, and the vendor (who would, probably, prefer not seeing a constable at all) met at the same cross roads, and after some explanations and inquiries, the vender was escorted to Oldcastle to take his chance at the next petty sessions.

GARDEN ROBBERY--On Sunday night the garden of Theophilus Thompson, Esq., J.P., was entered, and ten fine melons, with a quantity of carrots and onions stolen therefrom. Besides this the robbers broke a fine Mogul plum tree. This robbery must have been planned and premeditated, otherwise it is difficult to suppose that the melon frames could have been plundered.

RIBBONISM--We have reason to believe that there never was a period when the fell genius of Ribbonism was more active in this county than at the present time. Although no aggrarian outrages are now taking place, it is, nevertheless, impossible to say when the demon may manifest his unholy authority. There is much apprehension that should the ensuing winter cause anything approaching to privation amongst the peasantry, the Ribbon society will exert itself to prove its influence and extant. We learn that the Right Rev. Dr. BROWNE, as is his wont, denounced the conspiracy in the strongest terms in the course of his sermon on Sunday last, but it would appear that the Ribbonmen are as deaf to all remonstrance, to all warning and exhortation, as they are blind to their own best interests.


Magistrates present:--Theophilis Thompson, Esq., J. P., (Chairman); William Babington, Esq., J.P., William Humphrys, Esq., J.P., D.L.

Mr. Thomas W. SIXSMITH v. _________MURNEY

This was a summons for absconding from complainant a service, and for the recovery of £1 17s 9d, for goods sold and delivered. The defendant did not appear.

Thomas BELL proved the service of the summons.

Mr. SIXSMITH deposed that MURNEY was a hired servant up to the 12th of September next; he was hired by the quarter not for any definite period but so long as he would suit. He got goods from Mr. SIXSMITH on the representation that some members of his family owed him money, and asked leave to go to Kilmore to see his brother for the purpose of obtaining the money from him; it appeared that he was not successful, and he never since returned.

The Court sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned for a month for absconding from complainant's service, but could not deal with that part of the summons relating to the goods.

Eliza and Bartley M'CABE v. Patrick BRADY

Mr. M'GAURAN appeared for the complainant and stated that the allegation was that threats were used for the purpose of preventing the making of a mearing ditch. The parties were tenants on the Annesley Estate, and Mr. M'CLENEHAN was instructed by W. A. MOORE, Esq., to go and mark out the mearing which he did; a little of the ditch would go out on the defendant's land, and the defendant said that if M'CABE attempted to make it he "would put a ball through him."

Mr. Thompson suggested that it would be better to refer the matter to Mr. M'CLENEHAN, and if it were found that the defendant had transgressed the law the Court would punish him, but there were to be no threats in the meantime.

Defendant--There were threats on both sides.

Mr. M'GAURAN--There ought to be no threats on either side.

Mr. Thompson--Go home and live like Christians, not like Turks.

The parties then left the Court.

John MOORE v. Edward WALSHE

This was a summons for the trespass of 39 geese on complainant's grass land.

Mr. Moore said the summons was not brought for the one trespass, but it was going on for 50 years. Mr. Thompson remarked that 39 geese were very nearly equal to two cows.

Mr. Moore said that some years ago there was a trespass of upwards of 130 geese. Defendant said Mr. Moore's geese trespassed on his land and he never drove them off. Mr. Moore said he did not press for any fine or costs, all he required was that the geese should be kept off his land.

The summons was withdrawn.

Maurice LEDWIGE v. Patrich (sic) M'EVINIA

Mr. M'Gauran appeared for the plaintiff. It was a summons for threats used by the defendant, and there was also a cross-summons.

LEDWIDGE (sic) deposed that he lived in the house with defendant which was in fact "divided" between them; there was a old woman lodging in the kitchen which was common property; the complainant wanted her to be put out, but the defendant would not allow it; he went to put her out, but defendant took up a hatchet and swore he would not let the woman be put out.

Mr. LEDWIGE deposed that the defendant called her names; took up the hatchet and said "come on now LEDWIGE to this bed and I'll put this through your head."

Defendant said he certainly would not allow the complainant to go near the bed, but himself and his wife ran at him like two lions (laughter); he merely lifted the hatchet.

Defendant was then sworn and stated that he was going to work peaceably and quietly with his coat on his arm, when the defendant (sic) and his wife ran at him and were going to strike him; he then went to Mr. JONES, the landlord, saying he would get "fair play," and Mr. Jones said he "should have half the house."

Witness also produced a letter from Mr. Jones, giving him a good character.

Mr. Thompson said if the parties would take his advice they would shake hands, go home, and live quietly together. Both summonses were dismissed.

Mrs. KELLY v. Robert GREGG

This was a summons by Mrs. KELLY, of Cavan, against the defendant, who is son of Mr. Jared GREGG, for preventing her servants from digging and carrying away potatoes from a plot of ground at the rere of one of Mr. GREGG's houses in Church-street, recently occupied by a person named THORNTON.

Mr. M'GAURAN appeared for the plaintiff, and said that a person named THORNTON had been tenant to Mr. GREGG of a house and garden in Church-street in this town; Mrs. KELLY purchased a plot of potatoes from THORNTON and Mr. GREGG got possession from a person whom THORNTON left in the house; Mr. GREGG had stated that he would give to the 13th of August to remove the potatoes, but he would not them allowed them to be taken away.

Mrs. KELLY sworn and examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--Mrs. THORNTON came to me and asked me to buy the plot of potatoes; she said she was leaving the country, that she offered them to Mr. GREGG, and that he said they were worth £1, but he did not want them; I asked her if the rent was paid and she said it was, and that out of the last week's rent Mr. GREGG allowed her 1s 6d because she was not the full week in the house; I said I would send down two persons to look at the potatoes, and Mr. Alexander KETTYLE having seen them said they were not worth more than 7s 6d; Mr. Peter BRADY came to me and said he would advise me to pay 10s for them; I told him to send Mrs. THORNTON to me and I paid her 10s; I sent my servant named DUFFY to take away the potatoes.

Mr. GREGG--We admit that they were put out of the garden; you need not prove that.

David BYERS sworn--I was a lodger in the THORNTON's house; I heard Mr. GREGG give a month for taking away the potatoes--from the 20th of July to the 20th of August; he gave the permission to Mrs. THESSIMAN, THORNTON's aunt; she asked him how long he would give her to take away the potatoes and he said they would be very good in a month; then Mrs. THESSIMAN paid him the rent, and he returned her some of the money.

Mr. GREGG said the potatoes were not to be removed until some dilapidations were repaired.....

Chairman--What jurisdiction have we? I think there ought to be a process brought and let the Barrister decide it.

Mr. M'GAURAN said he had doubts about the jurisdiction, but if Mrs. KELLY brought a process she could recover the amount.

The summons was then nilled on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

George BUCHANAN v. Thomas RAHILL

This was a summons brought for a violent and dastardly assault committed by defendant on complainant's wife.

Mrs. BUCHANAN, whose nose and eyes were quite blackened by a blow from RAHILL, deposed as follows:--On Tuesday morning I was going down to Mr. DOUGLAS's for some things, and on coming back I found RAHILL in the garden; I went up and he hid under a thorn bush in the "slough"; I threw in a stone thinking he might come out, but he abused me and called me names; the next day I was on the road when Mrs. KELLY's men were going into the garden; RAHILL was there and "cheered" me; he came down and said, "how dare you go and tell your man that I took your beans and peas? I will summon you." I told him to "go along out of that," and then he said he would "double me in the shough" and struck me on the eyes.

RAHILL called a witness to prove that Mrs. BUCHANAN threw a stone at him before he struck her. The witness, however, could not swear whether the stone was thrown before or after.

Chairman--I think, sir, every one in this Court has had a good specimen of your conduct during the last five minutes. You are an ill-disposed vagabond, not inclined to earn your bread by industry or honesty, but going prowling about the place. You first trespassed upon this woman's garden; but there is no evidence to prove the larceny, if there were we should deal with you very summarily. When the woman remonstrated with you, you used ill language to her, and after that, in a cowardly manner, lifted your hand and struck her. You shall be imprisoned for one month.


Constable MORAN summoned Hugh BRADY for allowing his horse to wander on the public road. The case was proved, and

The Chairman said it was a most intolerable nuisance to have horses wandering on the public road. There was a grey horse which was constantly on the public road, and had broken down his fences, and there was no use in speaking to the defendant. Mr. MONTGOMERY was also complaining of the nuisance.

Defendant was fined 2s 6d and costs.

Daniel SHERIDAN appeared on summons to answer the complaint of Mr. James O'BRIEN for the tresspass of a grey and bay horse on complainant's meadow. The "grey" is the celebrated "charger" alluded to by the Chairman.

Thomas HYLAND proved the trespass.

Mr. O'BRIEN said he did not wish to sue for damages, although he would not wish for £1 that the trespass had taken place; all he wanted was to have the nuisance prevented.

The defendant was fine 2s. and costs.

The Chairman in giving the decision of the Court said there was a lot of fellows who kept horses without a sod of land, and fed them on the public roads.

Susan MASTERSON, a well-known inmate of the Cavan Union, was summoned for assaulting another pauper inmate. They were both in the ward together, and the prosecutrix asked "Susan" to "sit over" at the fire as she wanted to warm the child. Susan would not move, but raised her foot, and kicked complainant; swore she would kick her brains out, and gnashed with her teeth at her face.

Chairman--Well, Susan, what have you to say to this?

Susan--I have nothing to say. There are too many against me. She raised a mob to beat me--that's all, sir.

Chairman--We must send you to gaol for a month, Susan.

Susan--Not a foot; not an inch will I go to please him.

The Court afterwards rose.


August 29, at Cullies House, the wife of Nathaniel MONTGOMERY, Esq., of a daughter.

On 24th May, at Nelson, New Zealand, the wife of Edward W. STAFFORD, of Mayne, Co. Louth, Esq., of a son and heir.


In Cavan Church, on Wednesday, 20th inst., by the Rev. W. H. HUTCHINSON, A.B., Curate of Urney and Annageliff, Mr. Launcelot FYFE, Clerk of Petty Sessions, Bawnboy, to Miss Mary Anne M'CLELLAN, Drumlark, Cavan.

On the 26th inst., in St. Paul's Church, by the Rev. L. C. REICHARD, Ambrose HARTLY, Esq., Cootehill, Co. Cavan, to Henrietta Frances, eldest daughter of the late John SHEA, of Montpeller Hill, Dublin.

On Saturday, the 16th instant, at All Souls', Langham Place, London, by the Rev. George W. STRATTON, rector of Aylestone, the Earl of Roden, to Clementina Janet, widow of the late Captain Robert L. REILLY, of the Madra Army, and Scarva, Co. Down, daughter of T. ANDREWS, Esq., of Green Knowles, N.B., and niece of T. LEARMONTH, Esq., 11 Wimpole Street, Cavendish Square, London.


On the 20th instant, at the residence of her sister, Farnham Street, Cavan, Catherine, relict of Abraham KIDD, Esq., Armagh.

On the 15th inst., at 17, Grovenor Square, London, in her 73rd year, Georgina BROWNE, second daughter of the late Dominick Geoffrey BROWNE, Esq., Castlemacgarren, Co. Mayo.


Before Captain M. Phillips, J.P., and J. Rogers, Esq., J.P.

Mary HEANY v. Ellen YAW--This was a summons for 9s 8d, for 14½ days' wages, earned at weeding, &c., at 8d per day.

Mrs. YAW did not appear, but a letter has handed to the Bench, which stated that 6d per day was the amount previously given.

The Complainant, in answer to the Bench, stated 6d was all she previously received from Mrs. YAW, but had informed her that she was getting 8d from Mr. M'LEOD, and would not take less.

A decree for the amount was given, with costs.

Mr. A. LANG summoned Peter KINKART for leaving his service without permission. It appeared that defendant had been in the habit, when sent a message, of coming back when it suited himself, not consulting his master's convenience or inconvenience. On the 7th instant he was sent of a message by his employer, but did not return till the 9th. His only excuse for his absence was that he had met with some of the "Horsemen," and "took as glass."

The Bench, on Mr. LANG refusing to take defendant back, discharged him.--All wages due to be forfeited.

In the other cases entered the parties did not appear, and the court was consequently adjourned.

August 30, 1862


Magistrates present:--Captain M. Philips in the chair, and John Litton, Esq.


Mr. THURSTON, Supervisor of Excise, summoned Anthony M'ELLGUNN, of Belturbet, for that he, on the 17th April last, did sell as "pure" coffee one quarter pound, the same being adulterated with chicory.

Mr. John GRAHAM, I.R.O., being sworn stated that on the 17th April last he went into Mr. M'ELLGUN's shop, and asked for a ½ lb of pure coffee. Mrs. M'ELLGUN gave what she alleged to be such, the half of which I sent to London.

To the Bench--I am not a chemist; it was given me as pure coffee.

John STEELE, chemist, Government Laboratory Somerset House, London, deposed that a package of coffee sent to the Laboratory was analysed by him, and the result of the analysis was that 28 percent of the mixture was chicory--the remainder coffee.

Mr. Armstrong, solicitor, who merely watched the case up to this stage, now asked the witness--what coffee he was speaking of? where did he get it?

Witness--I got it in the Laboratory; I believe it was sent by the Supervisor of the Belturbet district.

Mr. Armstrong--Your belief won't do.

Witness--It came in the usual way. Mr. GRAHAM can prove to the wrapper it was sent in.

Mr. GRAHAM was then handed the sample of coffee, and he stated that he marked the sample on the evening he purchased it, and sealed it; the wrapper now produced was the one which was round the coffee when purchased.

Mr. Armstrong--Will you swear that is the coffee--Here, mind the wrapper--that you purchased from Mr. M'ELLGUN?

Mr. GRAHAM--I never saw it from that date till now.

Mr. THURSTON, the prosecutor, said that Mr. GRAHAM had retained a portion of the sample purchased, which he had also in Court.

Mr. Armstrong--This is altogether unfair; the sample produced first is the one on which the prosecution is founded, and on it the case must stand or fall.

Mr. STEELE then stated that before coming into Court he had made a microscopic examination of the portion of coffee in Mr. GRAHAM's possession, and found chicory in it. Not having the proper apparatus for ascertaining the percentage he could not positively state the quantity, but he believed it to be the same as that which he had examined in London.

Mr. GRAHAM's examination was again proceeded with by Mr. Armstrong, and followed up at great length with a view to create a doubt as to the identity of either portions of the sample.

Mr. GRAHAM admitted that he had sent one portion marked and sealed by the servant girl belonging to the house in which he resided on the evening of the 17th April; the other portion he had locked up in a trunk a part of the time--it was sealed, however, with the impression of a plain ring, and when pressed he swore positively it had not been tampered with.

Mr. Armstrong then addressed the Bench at some length denouncing the manner in which Mr. Graham had gone into Mr. M'ELLGUN's shop for avowed purpose of getting up the present prosecution--

Mr. Graham here interrupted Mr. Armstrong, stating he only did his duty according to his instructions.

Mr. Armstrong--I have a duty to perform for my client, and I repeat it was with the avowed object of a prosecution, and to-day he has persevered to the fullest extent to obtain a conviction. Mr. THURSTON has, I'm sure, no wish to go further than the law warrants to injure any person. As to the first portion of the coffee there is a link wanting to identify it as that purchased; the second also cannot be proved beyond all doubt to be the same from the careless manner in which it was kept. He felt confident that the Bench, acting as they were, magistrates and jurors in the case--when there was a shadow of a doubt in a case where the penalty was £100--they wold give the benefit of that doubt to the defendant.

Captain Phillips said his opinion, and he believed the opinion of his brother magistrate was the same--that the case was fully proved.

Mr. M'ELLGUN was about to make some statement that the coffee sold to Mr. GRAHAM was purchased from another trader for the best coffee, and labouring under that impression it was given to Mr. GRAHAM.

The Bench however objected to hear him, Mr. Armstrong having been heard for the defence.

Mr. M'ELLGUN stated Mr. Armstrong was not employed by him--he was sent by another person.

The mitigated penalty of 25l was imposed.

Mr. THURSTON stated that on a memorial being sent to the Board a further mitigation might be made.



This was a summons for 10s for injury done complainant's oats by defendant's cattle. The defendant did not deny the trespass, but stated in defence the complainant held the field where the oats was growing merely as con acre, and the owner himself had taken away the fences and damaged them, otherwise no trespass would have been committed.

The Bench, however, would not entertain a matter of fences in defence of trespass, and gave an order for 10s, with costs.

The Court then adjourned.


EXTENSIVE ROBBERY AND COMMITTAL OF THE THIEF--KELLS, SATURDAY, AUG. 23--Informations have been sworn before G. BOMFORD, J.P., and E.J. BANON, R.M., Esqrs., against a respectable looking man named James SHARKEY, charged with robbing a man named Hugh CAROLAN, of Nobber, under the following circumstances:--It appears that SHARKEY, who is son-in-law of CAROLAN, was in the habit of buying and selling stock for him at different fairs in Cavan and Meath; and that on the last fair day of Muff he sold cattle to the amount of between 70l and 80l. SHARKEY, who is a married man, was missing from his home, having left his wife and four children behind him. The police were apprised of the circumstances, and Constable MULVEY, assisted by Sub Constable DUNNE, of the Kells Constabulary, with a praiseworthy vigilance, hit upon his whereabouts at a lodging house in this town, as he was preparing to take the early train for Dublin. He was accompanied by a young woman named Rose RORKE, and both were decently dressed, ready for the start. Rose RORKE had acted as domestic servant in the house of his father-in-law for some time previously. On SHARKEY they found the sum of 60l, and on the person of the female only a few coppers. The prisoner, SHARKEY, was fully committed for trial and the woman discharged. Were it not for the vigilance of the two police officers the parties would have escaped. They were arrested at five o'clock in the morning.

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.