Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan

July 5, 1862


Magistrates present:--Wm. Babington, Esq., in the chair; Captain Carden, and William Murray Hickson, Esq., R.M.


Mr. Peter SMITH, publican, of Cavn, applied for and obtained one of the new spirit licenses available for fairs and markets for three days.


Constable M'CARTHY, of Stradone, summoned Owen FARRELLY for having allowed his pig to wander in the public street of Stradone, and Pat KELLAHER for having allowed his horse to wander on the public road. Defendants were each fine 6d and costs.


Mr. Patrick BRADY, of Cavan, summoned Andrew SMITH, butcher, for the trespass of a horse on his meadow on four occasions. Complainant alleged that in consequence of the continual trespassing of defendant's horse he was obliged to turn his meadow into a grazing field; he believed the horse was put into the field through the gate, for he did not see tracks at any place except near the gate; he demanded trespass three times. Defendant was fined 3s and costs.


John DUNNE summoned Christopher MORRIS for £2 wages earned as defendant's hired servant, during the half year ending in May last. Defendant did not appear, and a decree was given for the amount claimed, with costs.

John BRADY summoned Patrick REILLY for 8s 6d, wages earned as a labourer in March and April last. Plaintiff alleged that he had been hired by defendant's wife, and worked 8½ days; but the evidence of defendant and his wife was that plaintiff only worked a few days to make up for days lost by his son, who was then defendant's hired servant. The case was dismissed.


Patrick FLOOD charged Hugh LARKEY, James SMITH, and John DUFFY with having assaulted him in Cavan, on Tuesday, the 25th instant. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for DUFFY. FLOOD, the prosecutor, is a native of Redhills, and the prisoners belong to Cavan. FLOOD and the prisoners have been in the Cavan Militia. FLOOD's information stated that on the morning of Sunday, the 22nd instant, he heard a noise on the Fair green Hill, and, going up, saw DUFFY striking one of the unfortunate women; he told him it was a shame to strike a woman, and endeavoured to save her, upon which DUFFY struck him; they fought a few "rounds," and complainant was also struck by some of Duffy's companions; on the following Tuesday he saw James SMITH in Mrs. BANNON's public-house; SMITH endeavoured to pick a quarrel with him, and attempted to strike him; he afterwards followed him through the streets, dogging and "shouldering" him, apparently with the same intention; subsequently, at about one o'clock in the day, he saw the three prisoners in M'LENEHAN's entry in Bridge-street, and being apprehensive from what had occurred previously, that they were lying in wait for him, he went to the police barrack, and gave information to the police; on passing up Bridge street, he was attacked and severely beaten by DUFFY and LARKEY; he did not see SMITH on that occasion; the police came to his assistance, and arrested DUFFY and LARKEY....FLOOD did not press for punishment--he only sought protection, and the Court were disposed to take into account the time the prisoners had been in gaol and everything urged in their favour. The sentence of the Court was that they should find bail to keep the peace towards all her Majesty's subjects for twelve months--themselves in the sum of £10, and two sureties in £5 each--or, in default, to be imprisoned for one month each; and any attempt to interfere again with FLOOD would, if brought before the Court, be punished with the utmost severity allowed by the law. [The Court was crowded during the hearing of the foregoing case.]

Thomas M'GINNELL and two brothers named GALLIGAN were charged with having assaulted Pat. GAFFNEY, on Tuesday, the 10th of June. GAFFNEY's informations stated that on the 10th of June he was in SHERIDAN's public house in this town, and saw the prisoners disputing about drink with the servant girl; M'GINNELL was about to strike the girl for taking off his cap, and he interfered to protect her, upon which some angry words passed between himself and M'GINNELL; on his way home in the evening he was overtaken by the prisoners and some others near Lough Bray, and severely beaten by them; they struck him with sticks, knocked him down, kicked him, broke two of his teeth, and M'GINNELL struck him with a loaded butt. In his informations GAFFNEY fully identified the prisoners, but now he appeared to be troubled with a bad memory, and did all in his power to screen them from punishment by asserting that he could not identify them as his assailants. Vain were all attempts to induce him to give a direct answer to any question, and it was only under the threat of having his recognizance estreated he was induced to identify M'GINNELL. A young man named Patrick REILLY, summoned by the police, and who had witnessed the assault, fully identified M'GINNELL and one of the GALLIGANs; the other he was not sure of. Constable NOLAN, of Crosskeys, proved that he searched for the prisoners several times, but they evaded justice until lately.....The Court considered the charge proved against M'GINNELL and one of the GALLIGANs, and sentenced them to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour. The other prisoner received the "benefit of the doubt," and the Chairman rebuked GAFFNEY for his attempt to defeat the ends of justice. GAFFNEY had to pay for the stamps, and REILLY was allowed 3s expenses.

Catherine REILLY summoned Ellen KEANY for an assault. The fair litigants were middle aged....dames, farmers' wives, and next door neighbours. They had been indulging in an Amazonian battle royal of a fierce, though bloodless nature. Hostilities commenced with a few blank cartridge volleys of "aggravating" remarks, followed by a discharge of uncomplimentary epithets, after which, in accordance with the time-honoured custom of bellicose females under such circumstances, they rushed upon each other with a desperate courage worthy of warlike doves....Mrs. REILLY subsequently decided upon invoking the terrors of the law against her antagonist, and was about to narrate her wrongs, when the Court, finding that the fair disputants were provided with sufficient evidence to show that both were blameless, dismissed the case, with a recommendation to the ladies to study household economy instead of the science of "fisticuffs." A summons for trespass which one of the husbands had against the other shared the same fate.


Peter FARRELLY was brought up as a deserter from the Cavan Militia, having absented himself from the training of that regiment in 1861, and having attended only a portion of the last training. Sergeant LYNCH proved the case, and said the prisoner bore an excellent character when with the regiment. The prisoner, who looked very ill, said he had been sick in Carlisle at the time the regiment was called out for training in 1861; he was under the care of a railway doctor there, whose present address he did not know; at the commencement of last training he had fever, and was in hospital at Lisburn; he had scarcely recovered when he came here to attend the training, and has been in the gaol hospital since his arrest. He was fined £1, or, in default, to be imprisoned for a week.


The County Surveyor summoned Edward REILLY and Patrick FITZPATRICK, sureties for Luke FITZPATRICK, road contractor, deceased, under the following circumstances:--Defendants are finishing the contract held by Luke FITZPATRICK (810 perches road between Cavan and Stradone), and they allowed some person to make a fence along the side of the road. The County Surveyor had no objection to the fence, which would be rather an improvement to the road, but the party making it should have first obtained his consent, or a presentment. REILLY and FITZPATRICK had a summons against Mr. John MATCHETT, of Polls, as the person who made the fence, but he proved he had nothing to do with it, and the case against him was dismissed. The other case was postponed.


Rose REILLY, Bernard REILLY, and Anne BURNS were summoned for stealing turf from a bog near Butlersbridge. Patrick SMITH, the caretaker, proved the charge. Mr. Thomas REILLY said the bog was so infested by turf stealers, that the poor farmers who were paying an enormous rent for the bog, and some of whom had to come a distance of eight miles for their turf, were obliged to keep a man constantly watching the bog. As it was the first offence of defendants, they were only sentenced to 48 hours' imprisonment. Subsequently, at the request of Mr. REILLY, they were discharged on promising to pay the costs.

Jane HARRISON was charged with having, on the 22nd of June, at Cullies, stolen a quilt, the property of Catherine REILLY. The prosecutrix had been from home on the day of the robbery; on her return she found that her door had been forced, and the quilt stolen; the quilt was afterwards found in Mr. KIERNAN's pawn office, where it had been pawned by the prisoner; it was not value for 5s; the prisoner pleaded guilty. Two former convictions for larceny were proved against her, and she was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.


John KERRIGAN summoned Elizabeth DUNNE and Patrick DUNNE for trespass. Plaintiff has a tenement in the Half Acre, on which defendants have a hut; but as they occupied the hut for the last fifteen years--before plaintiff purchased the land, the Court had no jurisdiction, and plaintiff was informed that he must proceed by ejectment in a superior Court.


Edmund HAGARTY, of Corravoy, applied to the Court to have a watch, his property, returned to him. HAGARTY, some time ago, charged a man named CURTIS with having stolen the watch from him. An old woman afterwards gave the watch to the police, alleging that she found it in a lane off Bridge street. CURTIS was acquitted at the last Quarter Sessions, and the watch remained in the hand of the police. HAGARTY fully identified his watch, and the old woman who found it having resigned all claim to it, she received an order for 3s, for her expenses as a witness, from Sub Inspector NAPIER, and a couple of shillings from HAGARTY, to whom the watch was then given.


Sub Constable ROSS summoned Edward BRADY for drunkenness. Mr. B, ...enjoyed a jolly evening in Cavan with some right gay fellows, with whom he parted on the best of terms. Wending his homeward way in a state of sublime beatitude, he became the victim of a mental mirage of frequent occurrence to the votaries of Bacchus. Casting his eyes towards the moon's pale disc, he began to speculate upon the melancholy beauty of the poet-loved Cynthia. A throng of starry thoughts crowded upon him as his eye meandered along the milkey way, and he wondered ....Next morning he discovered he was not a star, but plain E.B., and the Court kindly "let him be"--discharged.

The only other cases were two undefended civil bills.


June 28, at Clifton Hill, Belturbet, the wife of Alexander PRINGLE, Esq., of a son.


July 3, in the Roman Catholic Chapel, Drumalee, by the Rev. P. GILROY, P.P. Belturbet, John GRAHAM, Esq., Inland Revenue Officer, Belturbet, to Eliza, second daughter of Mr. Alexander CURRY, Belturbet.


These Sessions commenced on Saturday, before P.M. MURPHY, Esq., Q.C., Chairman of the county. There were 92 civil bills and 10 ejectments--several undefended, and none of any public importance.


Thomas F. Knipe, Esq., Chairman

Henry M'CABE summoned Malcolm M'LEOD for 10s, amount of car hire, incurred in the months of August and October last.

This case came before the Bench on a former occasion, M'CABE having summoned the partners of the firm of John TUITE & Co., the debt being incurred, as he alleged, in the service of the firm. The party in possession of the premises refusing to pay, and M'CABE failing to prove that the care was employed on the business of the firm, the magistrates dismissed it.

James REILLY summoned John TUITE for 9s, which he stated defendant promised to pay. REILLY stated that he had been employed by Mr. YAW to white wash the house in which Mr. TUITE at present resides; that Mr. TUITE sent him to do the back part of the house, which Mr. YAW had refused to get done, and told him he would pay him if Mr. YAW did not, stating, at the same time, he would stop the amount out of the rent.

Mr. TUITE swore most positively that he had no conversation with the man on the subject.

The plaintiff was cross examined by Mr. S. N. Knipe, but adhered to his former evidence.

His worship dismissed the case, telling REILLY to look to Mr. YAW for the amount.

There were several cases of assault and larceny, but in the absence of two magistrates they were adjourned for a week.


BALLYMENA, SATURDAY EVENING.--Today the condensed peat fuel, the manufacture of which has been carried off for some time in this town, under the management of Mr. Ponsonby MOORE and Mr. TENNENT, was again tried for locomotive purposes on the ordinary train, leaving Belfast at half past nine o'clock. Mr. STEPHENSON, resident engineer of the Ulster Railway Company, Mr. DOMVILLE, resident engineer of the Co. Down Railway Company, Mr. YORSON, locomotive superintendent of the Northern Counties Railway Co., Mr. TENNENT, &c., travelled on the engine to watch the experiment and test the properties of the peat as a fuel for generating steam.

The peat used was of a superior quality to that tried on a former occasion, and the result was the most satisfactory that could even be desired.....

July 12, 1862


Magistrates present:--Captain Phillips, Captain Nesbitt, T. F. Knipe, and John Rogers, Esqrs.

John WILSON, of Drumaneskill, summoned George CLARKE, Robert CLARKE, and James M'CAFFREY, for maliciously setting fire to his bog at Corlaghaloo, on the night of the 23rd of June, and also for an assault at same time and place. The complainant deposed that the defendants made a fire on his bog, and when he remonstrated with them for doing so, they struck him with some of the lighted turf. Mr. S. N. Knipe appeared for the defendants, and said the complainant must certainly be out of his proper mind, as the last case he had before the Court was a summons against some children for "hunting the wren" and the present was a similar case. The boys, according to an old custom, had made what is called a bonfire, and were amusing themselves by throwing turf at each other, some of which may have struck the complainant, and he brought summonses against the poor boys because he happened not to be on good terms with their parents. The case was dismissed.

Peter SMITH of Keelagh, summoned Owen TOHER for having assaulted him on Sunday, 22nd of June. Mr. Knipe appeared for defendant. The parties were very young lads, and the assault of a trifling nature. Case dismissed.

Ellen FITZPATRICK summoned Michael M'DONNELL for having assaulted her at Drumavady, on the 29th ult. The defence was that defendant caught complainant stealing his turf, and used only necessary force to take it from her. Dismissed.

A few other unimportant cases having been disposed of, the Court adjourned.


On Sunday, the 6th instant, at his residence, Kilcony, Belturbet, Mr. John YAW, merchant and T.C., aged 52 years, deeply regretted.



In the Matter of the Estate of

HUGH SWANZY and JOHN SWANZY, Owners and Petitioners

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE to all whom it may concern, that the said Hugh SWANZY and John SWANZY, on the 14th day of June, 1862, presented a Petition in the Landed Estates Court, Ireland, praying that their Title to the Lands of Cornamahon, Drumcrow, and Drumavaddy, all situate in the Barony of Clonmahon, and County of Cavan, might be investigated, and a Judicial Declaration made thereon by the Court, that they, the said Hugh SWANZY and John SWANZY, have a good and sufficient title, in fee simple, to the said Lands of Cornamahon, Drumcrow, and Drumavaddy, subject to the Leases Tenancies, and Incumbrances specified in the said Petition....

Dated this 9th day of July, 1862


John SWANZY, solicitor for Petitioners, 5, Bachelor's walk, Dublin


Magistrates present:--William Babington, Esq., Chairman; Nathaniel Montgomery, and Wm. M. Hickson, Esq., R.M.


Edward M'CABE charged Wm. MAGINNESS with assault, and with having forcibly rescued himself after being arrested under a civil bill decree. He also charged Patrick MAGINNESS with aiding and abetting William MAGINNESS in the assault and rescue, and with having sheltered him in his house after his escape from custody. The defendants did not at first appear, and service of the summonses having been proved, the cases were about to be gone into, when Patrick MAGINNESS appeared. He said his brother wished to have the case postponed until he could have the assistance of a solicitor; with regard to the charge against himself, he said it was brought to prevent him giving evidence in favour of his brother. The Chairman said the application for a postponement should be made personally by William MAGINNESS, and the Court allowed the cases to stand for a few minutes, to give William MAGINNESS an opportunity of appearing. In about ten minutes the wife of William MAGINNESS came into Court, and said her husband was afraid to leave his house, lest he should be arrested under a civil bill decree which was in force against him. The Chairman said that William MAGINNESS should appear, or a warrant would be issued for his apprehension; as to the decree against him, he could not be arrested under it when coming to the Court, or returning from it to his own house, as he would be under the protection of the Court. Mrs. MAGINNESS then went for her husband, and Mr. John FITZPATRICK, clerk to Mr. Edward M'GAURAN, attorney for the plaintiff in the decree against William Maginness, handed up a written opinion to the effect that the Court could afford no protection from arrest to Maginness. The Court consulted upon this point for some time, but as William Maginness did not appear, the charge against him was gone into. M'CABE, the complainant, proved that on the 2nd inst., he arrested Maginness under a decree at the suit of John OATES; told defendant he had a decree against him, and also the name of the plaintiff in it; did not produce the decree, and defendant did not ask to see it; defendant walked quietly a short distance with him, until they were opposite his brother Patrick's shop, when he kicked complainant, broke loose from him, and escaped into his brother's shop; complainant was afraid to follow him. The evidence of complainant was taken down in the form of an information, and the case was postponed for a week. The case against Patrick MAGINNESS was dismissed, as M'CABE admitted that he did not in any way interfere with him beyond allowing his brother to take shelter in his shop.


James MAGUIRE, a deaf mute, charged Samuel PICKENS with having assaulted him. MAGUIRE's sister said she understood his signs sufficiently to be able to convey his meaning to the Court. She was accordingly sworn, as was also her brother. It appeared that MAGUIRE and PICKENS were working in the same place, when MAGUIRE, who is very irritable, quarrelled with PICKENS, and a scuffle took place, in which MAGUIRE received some hard knocks. The Court fined PICKENS in the costs, as they considered he should not have struck an afflicted creature like MAGUIRE, no matter what provocation he received from him.


Mervyn SIMONS, son of Mr. Jas. SIMONS, saddler, summoned Richard HICKS for having had a ferocious dog at large, unlogged and unmuzzled. Complainant was passing defendant's house with a water dog, when defendant's bulldog ran out and bit him in the hand. The Court gave an order for the destruction of the dog--defendant to pay the costs.


Frank BRADY summoned Philip SMITH to recover possession of a house and garden in Derryleague, held by the defendant as cottier tenant. The agreement was not in writing, and some other conditions of a cottier tenancy being wanting, the Court dismissed the case, and informed plaintiff that he should bring an ejectment at the Quarter Sessions.


James LEE processed Andrew M'CABE and Anne M'CABE for £1 10s 10d, due for potatoes. He stated that on the 4th of April he sold defendants three pecks of potatoes at 6d per stone, and on the 6th of May he sold Andrew M'CABE 15s worth of potatoes. Andrew M'CABE did not appear, but his sister, Anne M'CABE, admitted the debt. She asserted, however, that the potatoes were not to be paid for until Hollantide next; on that understanding herself and her brother passed an I.O.U. to plaintiff for £2 worth of potatoes, but plaintiff broke faith with them by giving them only £1 10s 10d worth, and seeking for the money before the time agreed upon, notwithstanding which he still held the I.O.U. Plaintiff denied that he was not to seek for his money until November. He admitted that he received an I.O.U. for £2, and that he had at first intended to have given potatoes to that amount, but he subsequently changed his mind. The I.O.U. was produced by plaintiff. It was witnessed by Mr. John MAGUIRE, publican, Bridge-street; but there was nothing in it to show at what time the potatoes were to be paid for. The Court, considering the case a rather doubtful one, gave a decree for the amount claimed--one-half to be paid at once, and the other half to be paid before the 1st of November. Plaintiff was ordered to give back the I.O.U. to Miss M'CABE, between whom and himself a very animated wordy skirmish took place.

Mr. Charles QUEALE had a civil bill process against John WALSH for 6s 1½d, amount of shop goods for which defendant promised to pay. WALSH admitted the debt, but he had a summons against Mr. QUEALE for £1 12s, for work. He was engaged by Mr. QUEALE and a man named HEEL, to burn lime for them, at 10s per week--HEEL paying him one week, and QUEALE the other; he was to burn 30 barrels of lime each day, but he was only to supply the kiln with stones, and was to have an assistant to "draw" the lime from the kiln, &c; HEEL supplied the assistant every week in his turn, but Mr. QUEALE agreed to pay him for the extra work, instead of giving him the assistant, and the extra amounted to the sum now claimed. Mr. QUEALE denied that he had ever, directly or indirectly, promised to give WALSH an assistant, or pay him for extra work; he was to give nothing but 10s a week, and that was HEEL's agreement also; WALSH never claimed more until after he processed him for the shop goods. The Court gave a decree to stand for a week for the amount claimed by Mr. QUEALE, and postponed the other case for the evidence of HEEL.


Charles JOHNSTONE, of Crumlin, applied to the Court under the following circumstances:--Some time ago a young woman named Anne M'KERNAN, of Bannagher, brought an action for seduction against one of his sons, who gave her £8 to avoid exposure. On Sunday morning the woman deserted her illegitimate child, and left it at his son-in-law's house. She threatened to burn his house, and that she would "leave him without a four-footed beast before three months were over." In consequence of these threats, he was afraid she would do him some injury. The Chairman directed him to get a summons against her.

The Court then rose.

July 19, 1862


Magistrates present--William Babington, Esq., Chairman; Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., Theophilus Thompson, Esq., and Henry Murray Hickson, Esq., R.M.


John M'CLELLAN was summoned by the police for having allowed his cattle to wander on the public road.

Sub Inspector NAPIER said that several complaints had been made by Captain Carden that cattle were allowed to wander on the road upon which defendant's cattle had been found. The defendant was Captain Carden's steward. One of the constables who found the cattle on the road very foolishly said he was glad he had caught them. This expression was to be regretted, for it might be imagined that in making use of it the man was actuated by ill feeling towards defendant, although such did not appear to be the case, as the explanation of his words given by the man to the acting constable was that he was glad he caught defendant's cattle, because it would be the means of letting Captain Carden know whose cattle were in the habit of wandering on the road. However, he had reprimanded the man for making use of the expression, and, as he did not wish there should be the slightest ground afforded for believing any man under his command capable of being influenced by any other feeling than a desire to discharge his duty, he would under these circumstances, withdraw the summons.

The Chairman said that Mr. NAPIER had acted very properly in the matter; at the same time it was highly probable that the constable was actuated by no ill feeling towards defendant, and that the explanation he gave of his words was really the true one.

The summons was then withdrawn.


At last Petty Sessions Court, a man named Charles JOHNSTONE, of Crumlin, made a complaint that a woman named Anne M'KERNAN, of Bannagher, had threatened to burn his house. He said that this woman had received £8 from one of his sons to compromise an action for seduction, yet she continued to annoy him, and left her illegitimate child at his son-in-law' s house. The Court directed him to summon her. JOHNSTONE did so, but in the interim she summoned his son, Charles JOHNSTONE, junior (not the father of her child), for having assaulted her on the 8th instant. The latter summons was first on the book. Complainant, who had a baby in her arms stated that on the 8th instant, as she was going into JOHNSTONE's house to endeavour to get a little money from the father of her child, she was assaulted by Charles JOHNSTONE, junior, who, having first asked her what brought her near the house, called her improper names, beat and kicked her in a brutal manner, and would have further ill treated her had he not been prevented by his mother, who dragged him into the house. She alleged that she gave defendant no provocation. She further stated that after she received the £8 for compromising the action, the father of the child offered to marry her if she would go to England with him; on this understanding she gave him back £3 out of the £8, and subsequently other sums; he promised to buy her clothes for herself and the baby, but did not do so; she helped him to rob her mother of sixteen pecks of potatoes, which they sold, and the price of which he kept; she went with him to England, and they were lawfully married in St. Peter's Church, Liverpool, by a Protestant clergyman; she is a Roman Catholic, and he is a Protestant; he did not succeed in obtaining employment in Liverpool, and after a short stay there, they resolved to return to Ireland; after landing at Dublin they had to walk to this county; she was obliged to walk 31 miles in one day, with her little baby in her arms; his friends induced him to leave her shortly after they returned to their native place, and concealed him in his sister-in-law's house at Lavagh; she went there to inquire for him, and his sister-in-law threw her out of the house; she took shelter in a clover field near the house until about ten o'clock that night, when he came to her, covered her with his coat, and said his brother had threatened to kill him if he went near her; previous to that occurrence he had stolen the marriage certificate out of her pocket, but in his mother's house he took his oath he was married to her; he promised to take a house, and live with her, as his friends would not receive her; it was on the faith of this promise she took the child from the Workhouse, where it had been brought after she abandoned it as stated by her husband's father; her husband was again concealed from her by his family, although she had offered to go to service, if he would provide for the support of the child; she was trying to get the price of some food for her child--all her money being gone--when defendant assaulted her. Defendant denied the assault. A little boy swore that he heard the complainant abuse defendant, and saw her throw stones at him; defendant asked her why she did so, and pushed her from the house, but he did not strike her. The Court dismissed the case--the Chairman stating that complainant had no right to annoy defendant or his father, and that she should seek legal redress for her grievances relative to the support of her child and her alleged marriage. The elder JOHNSTONE withdrew his summons, and said he had no wish to punish the woman if she kept away from his house.


A man named BIRD summoned a farmer named John M'CABE for 4s. 6d, wages earned by harrowing for defendant. The defendant did not appear and service of the summons having been proved, a decree was given for the amount claimed.

John WALSH summoned Charles QUEALE, for £1 12s. Plaintiff alleged that he had burned lime for defendant and a man named HEEL, who was partner with him in the limekiln. He was to receive 10s a week for burning 30 barrels of lime each day, but he was to have nothing to do with "drawing" the kiln or weighing the lime....Defendant denied the alleged agreement.....Mr. John Armstrong appeared for plaintiff, and HEEL corroborated plaintiff's account of the agreement. The Court gave a decree for 16s ---2s a week for the extra work. Mr. QUEALE gave notice of appeal, and at his request, the decree was increased to £1 12s, with £1 costs. Subsequently Mr. QUEALE withdrew the appeal, and paid the sum originally ordered.


Mary O'BRIEN, a young lady in a high peaked bonnet, ornamented with floricultural specimens and "mauee" ribbons, charged two young ladies in "neglige" costumes, named Margaret KEARNS and Mary TWEEDY, with assault and battery, and other unladylike conduct. The fair complainant and her assailants reside in that classic quarter of the good town of Cavan "yelept" by the vulgar Mudwall Row, but occasionally known as "College View Terrace," and "Paradise Row." An immortal poet hath said or sang in deathless verse, that "Love rules the cot, the camp, the grove," and it need not be wondered at if gentle hearts in Mudwall Row are sometimes pierced by the bolts of the cunning little archer who wounds her Grace the Duchess as unconcernedly as he does Joan the milkmaid. A stray shot reached Miss TWEEDY's breast some time since, through the eyes of an Adonis of the "Row," and sharp were her pangs at first; but Dan Cupid took pity on her pains, and concealed behind her crinoline, wounded her Adonis also, who straightway acknowledged himself her slave. Great was her joy thereat, and fondly she listened to the protestations of her swain, and hopefully she painted bright pictures of future joy. But never yet did "the course of true love run smooth," and soon was the truth of the saddening proverb verified in the case of Miss T. The serpent of her Eden was Miss Mary O'BRIEN; "she saw her beau all other beaux excelling," and she used the blandishments of a Circe to win his heart from the shrine where his vows were plighted. Female flesh and blood could not tamely endure such treachery, and Miss TWEEDY declared war to the nails against her rival. She confided the story of her wrongs to her bosom friend, Miss KERNAN (sic), and great was the indignation of Miss K at the duplicity of Miss O'BRIEN....on Thursday night she met Miss KERNAN (sic) carrying a tin gallon, who straightway ran "a much" against her, like a frenzied Malay, and incontinently "pitched her into the trinket." Aggrieved at such conduct, she called Miss K. "a dirty thick witted ass," and "gave her a batt," which Miss K. returned, and a terrific single combat commenced. A young gentleman named Tom BELL, hearing the chimes of the warlike "belles" endeavoured to separate them, by reminding them that "their little hands were never made to tear each other's eyes," and other sage...axioms. ..The combat thus interrupted was subsequently renewed in the Row, and assumed the dimensions of a general engagement, resulting, of course, in an appeal to the Court--Mesdames KEARNS and TWEEDY, defendants in the first summons, charging Mary O'BRIEN, Eliza O'BRIEN, William CARROLL, and Eliza CARROLL with having feloniously and wilfully "murdered" them. Specimens of hair and tertiary rocks were produced; allegations of blackened legs and bruised bones made....the Court ruled that William CARROLL and Mesdames TWEEDY, O'BRIEN and KEARNS should find bail--themselves in the sum of £5, and two sureties in £2 each--to be of peaceful behaviour for six months, or, in default, to spend a week in gaol--a decisions which seemed to satisfy none of the litigants.


Honora REILLY was brought up in custody, charged with having stolen a gown, the property of a Mrs. CULLEN, who lives near Stradone, and a cape, the property of Mrs. CULLEN's servant. Information of the robbery was given to Constable M'CARTHY, of Stradone, who, having seen the prisoner in the locality, and knowing her to bear a bad character, he suspected, followed, and arrested her some miles from Stradone. The stolen goods were found in her possession, and also a pair of boots, for which no owner has yet been found. The prisoner is a mild, innocent-looking young girl, yet has been convicted of two former felonies--once of stealing a sheep, and once of stealing a shawl, and has been only a short time out of gaol. She was sent for trial to the Assizes.

The Court then rose.


Captain J. A. Nesbitt, in the chair; other magistrates present:--Thomas F. Knipe, and John Rogers, Esqrs.


John MONAGHAN, senior, and John MONAGHAN, jun. (father and son), were prosecuted by Daniel LEDDY, of Cavan, for an assault, and for rescuing certain goods seized by him under an ejectment decree, at the suit of the Rev. E. B. W. VENABLES, J.P., Redhills--LEDDY deposed to having gone on the 5th inst. to take possession of the premises named in the ejectment (produced) in the town of Redhills, in possession of the defendants, when he seized a quantity of meal, flour, &c., for the sum of £2 12s 6d, the costs of the ejectment decree. The defendant struck him and pushed him out of the house where the goods were.

The Bench granted informations to be returned to the next Quarter Sessions, bail to be taken in the meantime.

Mr. Henry M'CABE summoned Messrs. John TUITE, of Kilcony, William Clifford TUITE, of Sligo, and Malcolm M'LEOD, of Strahigland, for a sum of 16s, due for car hire, earned in the months of August and October, 1861.

Mr. John Armstrong, solicitor, appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Samuel N. Knipe, solicitor, for defendants.

Mr. Armstrong was proceeding to state complainant's case when Mr. Knipe said he had three objections to make to the present summons being hear--first, that there was a summons for the same claim brought against the Messrs. John and William TUITE, which the magistrates dismissed. Secondly, that a summons was brought against Mr. M'LEOD for the same, and which summons was adjourned, and still stood for hearing; his third objection was that Mr. M'LEOD had no right to be named in the summons as a partner with the Messrs. TUITE. It was like "Punch's" celebrated publication, trying to shift the characters of persons by giving them other names......

The Bench decided on dismissing the case, and let M'CABE summons Messrs.John TUITE and Co., without naming Mr. M'LEOD as a partner, and if it was proved the cars were for the use of the concern, the Court would grant a decree; or, on the other hand, if he summoned Mr. M'LEOD, he being the person who employed the cars, the Court would decree him.

Mr. M'LEOD stated he would pay the amount sooner than allow the man to have any further trouble in the matter.

The Court then adjourned.



Monaghan, Friday, July 11

The right Hon. Justice BALL and the Right Hon. Justice FITZGERALD arrived here shortly before 2 o'clock, escorted by the High Sheriff of the County, Captain Jesse LLOYD.

CROWN COURT (before Mr. Justice BALL)

The Commission having been read by the Clerk of the Crown, the following gentlemen were resworn on the Grand Jury:--James HAMILTON, Esq., foreman; Major T. COOTE, E. W. LUCAS, S.R.B. EVATT, T. LUCAS, J. LENRAIGNE, Captain Leslie J. MORANT, J. CUNNINGHAM, B. G. BROOKE, A. R. YOUNG, P. DENNY, R. A. MINNETT, J. BRADY, James BROWNLOW, William MURRAY, and G. G. WRIGHT, Esqrs.

His Lordship addressed them very briefly, stating he had no particular observations to upon the offences appearing on the calendar...His Lordship then proceeded with the fiating of the presentments.


MOLLOY, Appellant; W. R. M'DONNELL, Respondent.

This was an appeal from the decision of the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County of Monaghan. The civil bill was brought to recover damages, laid at £12, for an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of a horse; the alleged warranty being that the horse in question was sound, and also quiet in harness; and the plaintiff's case was that the horse turned out to be unsound, and also refused to draw. The learned Chairman dismissed the case, and his Lordship affirmed the dismiss.

Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Arthur HAMILL; attorney, Mr. REILY, For respondent, Mr. Wright

Samuel IRWIN v. Thomas STEENSON

The plaintiff sought to recover £3, being the value of the half of a £3 note of the National Bank, which it was alleged the defendant, a shopkeeper in the town of Ballibay, had got into his possession in December last. The Chairman had dismissed the case without prejudice, and from that decision the plaintiff now appealed.

The plaintiff's daughter was examined in support of his case. The defendant was then examined, and stated that the £3 note, the half of which he had lost, was a black northern note, with the words "Northern Bank" across it.

His Lordship said that the evidence showed that the note now in Court could not have been his, as it was a National Bank note, and consequently he would reverse the dismiss, and give a decree for the full amount to the plaintiff.


This was an action of ejectment on the title to recover possession of the lands of Aughaderry, in the parish of Errigle, Barony of Trough, and county of Monaghan, with £40 for mense rates.

The defendant pleaded the statuteable defence.

The case previous to being called was settled, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff by consent.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Messrs. JOY, Q.C. and HARRISON; attorney, Mr. HALL. Counsel for defendant, Messrs. FURGUSON and SHEGOG; agent, Mr. Moore.



In this case the claimant, who is an extensive farmer residing at Tullyhornett, in the Co. of Monaghan, sought to recover by presentment....the sum of £115, as compensation for injuries sustained by the burning of certain outhouses, which were alleged to have been set on fire maliciously, in consequence of the claimant having introduced into the county a threshing machine, which the people believed would interfere with the employment of manual labour in the neighbourhood. The Grand Jury investigated the matter, and found that the burning was malicious and presented for a sum of £107 10s for compensation, subject to an exception taken by Mr. KAYE, who appeared before them as counsel for the ratepayers, as to the validity of the application in consequence of the claimant having omitted to post the notice of the application, as required by the 11th section of the act.

Messrs. HAMILL and KAYE were heard in support of the objection, and Mr. HARRISON for the claimant.

His Lordship respited the presentment until the next assizes, stating that he would in the meantime consider the question.

Peter DALY pleaded guilty to a charge of having arms in his possession in a proclaimed district.

John DALY, a son of the last prisoner, was put upon his trial on a similar charge, but was acquitted by the jury.

James DEMPSEY was indicted for the wilful murder of Francis GROGAN, on the 5th of February last.

It appeared from the evidence of a witness named Patrick M'MAHON that he had been attending a funeral on the day in question, in company with the prisoner, who is a tailor by trade, and the deceased; they afterward met in a public house and had some drink; the prisoner and deceased disputed there about a broken window; they got a pint of whiskey and went to the house of the prisoner, the deceased accused the prisoner with not having bought as much whiskey as he had promised; prisoner then ordered deceased and witness out of his house; when outside the deceased took off his coat, and "contended" with the prisoner through the window; they then went towards him, but were shortly afterwards followed by the prisoner in his shirt sleeves; deceased turned back, and gave the prisoner battle; heard the blows struck, but saw no weapon; heard the deceased shouting out he was struck; prisoner ran off when the blows were struck; saw the deceased bleeding from the side, arm and shoulder; deceased was brought to the house of a man named M'CABE, when he died in 13 days after.

The witness was cross examined by Mr. HAMILL, but nothing further was elicited.

Another witness was examined who stated that the prisoner told him of the quarrel, and said that he stabbed the deceased in the side with a scissors.

Dr. MOORE stated that the wound inflicted on deceased's side was five inches long and one and a half inch broad, the kidneys having been transixed (sic) by the weapon, and that deceased died of traumatic tetanus which followed in consequence of the wound.

The jury found the prisoner guilty of "Manslaughter," and accompanied their verdict with a recommendation to mercy.

His Lordship sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Sir T. STAPES, Bart., Q.C., and Mr. LAW, Q.C., appeared as counsel for the Crown, as also in the preceding cases.--Mr. HAMILL defended the prisoner.


His Lordship having disposed of the civil business, proceeded to hear criminal cases.

Michael GOODMAN and Peter M'CLUSKEY were indicted for having assaulted Owen MARTIN, of Coolkea, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

It appeared that MARTIN was returning from Carrickmacross, on the 28th June last, when the prisoners ran out from behind a hedge, and attacked him. GOODMAN struck him on the side of the head with a stone which split his ear. He was knocked down, kicked, and thrown into a field nine feet deep. He was confined to his bed for nine days in consequence of the injuries he received, and was attended by Dr. FLEMING.

The evidence of MARTIN was corroborated by two lads who saw the occurrence.

Mr. FALKINER then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners.

Several witnesses were examined and proved that at the time of the alleged assault the prosecutor was under the influence of drink.

His Lordship charged the jury, who found GOODMAN guilty of inflicting actual bodily harm, but were unable to agree to a verdict to M'CLUSKEY.

His Lordship having considered the matter submitted to him sentenced the prisoner to six months imprisonment, and at the expiration of that time to find bail to keep the peace for five years, and in default of finding bail to be imprisoned for a further period of six months.

Patrick M'ILEER was indicted for having, on the 18th of May, 1861, feloniously killed one Michael M'ILEER, at Drumcoscarter, in the parish of Fidarnet, in this county.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.

One other case was heard of no public interest, and the assizes terminated.

July 26, 1862


Magistrates present:--Theophilus Thompson, Esq., Chairman; William Babington, Esq., John G. Tatlow, Esq., Nathaniel Montgomery, Esq., and William Murray Hickson, Esq., R.R.

Richard TUBMAN obtained a decree to possession of a house in the town of Cavan, held by James FAY, as weekly tenant--tenancy having terminated by notice to quit, &c.

Luke LEE summoned Bernard M'LENNON and Sarah M'LENNON--the latter for having at Shauskill, on the 5th instant, cruelly cut and injured complainant's poney, and the former for having aided and abetted her in doing so. The poney was grazing upon some land claimed by both parties, and Mrs. M'LENNON threw a stone at the poney, to compel him to change his quarters. The case was postponed, in order that John LITTON, Esq., J.P., agent of Lord Lanesborough, upon whose property the parties live, may settle the question of ownership of the disputed land.

Sub Constable Patrick LOUGHUANE summoned Michael SMITH and Patrick DONOHOE for fighting in the public street of Ballyhaise on the last fair evening. LOUGHUANE could not tell who the defendants were fighting with, and the case was postponed for further evidence.

Frank LEE, James GAFFNEY, and Patrick GAFFNEY were charged with having assaulted Patrick CORR, on his way home from the last fair of Cavan. The "row" arose about a tobacco pipe, and complainant was severely beaten, but his memory was wonderfully defective regarding the part taken in the assault by the GAFFNEYs, and he alleged that LEE was not present at all--his principal assailants being another man of the same name. The case against LEE was dismissed, and that against the other defendants postponed.

Sub Constable William MAHONY summoned Pat. CONATY for having allowed his two dogs to wander unlogged and unmuzzled on the public road at Pullakeen. Defendant proved that he had drowned one of the dogs, and he was only fined in the costs.

The Court then rose.


At half past one o'clock on Wednesday, the Grand Jury were sworn for the discharge of fiscal business in the Record Court, before John Albert Nesbitt, Esq., J.P., High Sheriff of the county. The Grand Jury immediately afterwards proceeded to dispose of the business.....

Baron FITZGERALD entered Court shortly after ten o'clock on Friday, and the Commission having been read by Mr. Patrick CAFFREY, Deputy Clerk of the Peace.....His Lordship then addressed the Grand Jury, stating that the number of offences for which bills would likely to be sent before them were not, as far as he could understand, very numerous...The Grand Jury then retired to their room, and his lordship proceeded to fiat the presentments.

The presentments having been fiated, a petty jury was sworn, and

Hugh MAGUIRE was indicted for having, on the 23rd of February, 1862, feloniously killed Thomas FANON. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and, in reply to the usual question, stated that he had no professional man engaged to defend him.

His lordship said that an application had been made to him on behalf of the prisoner, to assign him attorney and counsel. The law in Ireland was somewhat different to that in England, and, as the prisoner was not indicted for the capital charge, but on the minor charge of manslaughter, he was afraid he had no power to assign him attorney or counsel.

Mr. HENDERSON, Q.C., said that the law did not allow his lordship the power of doing so.

The prisoner was then given in charge of the jury. He did not avail himself of the right of challenge.

Mr. Henderson, Q.C. (who, with Mr. S. Y. Johnstone, prosecutor), stated the case on the part of the Crown.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner (a sickly-looking young man), is a shoemaker, and lives at a place called Comagh, near Ballymagauran, and about seven miles from Killeshandra. He had been on bad terms for some time with Thomas FANON, and quarrelled with him at the wake of a man named JOHNSTONE on the Friday night before the homicide. On the 23rd of February 1862, the prisoner and some others were at the funeral of this Johnstone. In the evening the prisoner and four others were drinking at a public house kept by a man named COSGRAVE, on the public road near a lane called Comagh lane. In this lane is a gate called Maulinson's gate, and a pass or "short cut" to some houses, in one of which lives a girl named M'DERMOTT. At half past six or seven o'clock on the evening of Sunday, the 22nd of February, this girl, Mary M'DERMOTT, her cousin, Catherine M'DERMOTT, Thomas DONOHUE, and Thomas FANON, were drinking in Cosgrave's public house, and had a "naggin of whiskey" between them. They remained only a short time in Cosgrave's house. On their way home they met the prisoner in Comagh lane. He said to FANON "You're there" and FANON made a similar observation in reply and then some angry words passed between them (illegible)....After a few minutes FANON struck the prisoner, who at once returned the blow. One man named Patrick PRIOR, who lives in the lane, had been a few minutes previously...Hugh M'GINN who was drunk. Seeing FANON and the prisoner fighting, PRIOR and the others endeveavoured to separate them, and succeeded in doing so. They again "got into holds," as the witnesses termed it, and they were again separated. Patrick PRIOR received a slight wound in the hand, and another of the prisoners received a cut on the knee when trying to separate FANON and the prisoner. PRIOR brought the prisoner down the lane, and the others continued with FANON. Immediately after being separated from the prisoner, FANON became insensible and fell. PRIOR came back, and putting his hand on FANON's trousers found that they were covered with blood....He was conveyed to Cosgrave's public house, and his clothes taken off, when it was found that he had been stabbed in the thigh in three places. Cosgrave went for FANON's mother and for the priest. FANON was then sensible, but exceedingly weak, and told Cosgrave that the prisoner stabbed him when they were fighting in the lane. He expired in about twenty minutes, and was dead before the arrival of his mother and the priest. Dr. KENNY, of Killeshandra, who examined the body the next day, found two incised wounds on the lower part of the left thigh, and a punctured wound in the upper part. The femural artery had been severed by the latter wound, and nearly all the blood in the deceased's body was poured out through it.....The prisoner was arrested shortly after FANON was brought to COSGRAVE's by Constable WARD, who found him in his brother-in-law's house, cutting tobacco with the knife produced. He stated to him that he had not been in COSGRAVE's that evening...An inquest was held on the body, before James BERRY, Esq., coroner, and a verdict of wilful murder was returned against the prisoner. At the last Assizes the prisoner was arraigned, but having pleaded that he was not ready for trial, the case was postponed. A great number of witnesses were examined, nearly all of whom were skillfully cross-examined by the prisoner. The bloodstained clothes of the deceased were produced, and the knife with which the wounds were inflicted. The prisoner called two witnesses to prove that when at JOHNSTONE's wake the young men and women present were playing a game called "Marrying the nine daughters," when the deceased and the prisoner quarrelled. He also called M'GINN, one of those present on the occasion of the homicide, but who was too drunk at the time to recollect anything of the occurrence, to give him a character, but M'GINN objected to being sworn, and his lordship recommended the prisoner not to press for his testimony. The prisoner acquiesced in the suggestion, and said he had a certificate of character from his parish priest, but it was not produced.

His Lordship then charged the jury, who after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty.

His Lordship in passing sentence on the prisoner, said the jury could not, consistently with their oath, have found any other verdict than one of guilty....The sentence he should pass up on him was that he be kept in penal servitude for ten years.

Michael REID, an old man of sixty seven years of age, was indicted for having, on the 28th of April, 1862, fired a loaded musket at Thomas SMITH, with intent to kill and murder him; a second count charged him with intent to maim and disable, and a third and fourth count with having inflicted grievous bodily harm on SMITH.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Messrs. Henderson, Q.C. and Johnstone prosecuted. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Richardson.

It appeared from the evidence of Thomas SMITH that he had been sent by his master on the 28th of April to plough for a man named CLARKE, who lives six and a half miles from his master's house; a man named Matthew REILLY was with him, and they had horses, ploughs, and a cart with them; they worked until about seven o'clock in the evening; they returned through the town of Ballyjamesduff, where they had two "johnny" glasses of whiskey in a public house; they left Ballyjamesduff at about half past eight o'clock; the prisoner keeps a public house about two and a half miles from Ballyjamesduff; SMITH was acquainted with the prisoner, and had often drank in his house; when SMITH and REILLY reached the prisoner's house, SMITH knocked at the door and called for a drink and a light; he received no reply, and he then went to an adjoining house occupied by a widow named LYNCH, where he and REILLY obtained a light, but did not get a drink; when they came from Mrs. LYNCH's house, SMITH knocked again at the door...SMITH and REILLY were only a few perches from the prisoner's door, when they heard the latch moved, and, turning round, they saw the prisoner at the door dressed in a nightcap and shirt; the prisoner stood at the door, and fired a gun at them. Several shots lodged in SMITH's head, and he fell to the ground. REILLY lifted him into the cart and brought him home. He was attended next morning by Dr. MAWHINNY, who found his head covered with clotted blood, and his eyes greatly swollen. On removing the blood with a sponge, he found several gun shot wounds in the head, and on following their course with a probe, he found the shots and removed them. One shot had entered the left eyelid and descended into the socket....He attended him for 17 days, and for about ten days he considered his life to be in imminent danger....His Lordship, in charging the jury, said he would reserve judgment in reference to the wording of the first count in the indictment, in case they found the prisoner guilty on it, and closely reviewed the evidence brought forward.

The jury acquitted the prisoner on the first count, and convicted him upon the others. They recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of his old age, and the fact that the offence was committed in a moment of excitement.

His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to three month's imprisonment, and said he would omit all references to hard labour.

Patrick CAHILL was indicted for having, on the 13th of April, feloniously killed and slew Philip REILLY. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. DOWSE, shortly after the arraignment of the prisoner, entered court, and applied to have the plea of Not Guilty withdrawn, and a plea of Guilty substituted. He did not think, on looking over the informations, that the offence charged against the prisoner could be made less than that of manslaughter. It was a very melancholy and lamentable occurrence, and no one more deeply regretted it than the prisoner. The deceased man was married to the prisoner's sister, and lived in the same house with the prisoner's mother. The prisoner lived with his wife in the opposite house, on the same "street" as it is called in this part of the country, within a short distance of the town of Ballinagh. The prisoner and the deceased had been always on good terms up to the day of the unfortunate occurrence which let to the present prosecution. On that day the prisoner was engaged in one of the out-offices attached to the house, and had a pitchfork or "grape" in his hand, using it for some purpose. The deceased was cleaning a horse in his own place. According to the informations of Thos. REILLY, the prisoner's servant, deceased's ass was trespassing in the prisoner's field, and he brought out his master's dog to hunt the ass away. The prisoner's dog and deceased's dog began to fight--they had often quarrelled before--and the prisoner hearing the noise, ran out, with the pitchfork in his hand, and tried to beat deceased's dog away from his own. Deceased also ran out, with a curry comb or horse brush in his hand, and seeing the prisoner beating his dog away, he struck the prisoner on the head, and knocked him down. The prisoner got up, and in the heat of anger, unfortunately struck the deceased on the head with the pitchfork. He only struck the one blow, but that caused the death of the deceased.

His Lordship--As I recollect the informations, Mr. Dowse, this Reilly is the only person who swears to having seen the prisoner strike the blow.

Mr. Dowse--He is my lord. As I said before, no one more deeply deplores this unhappy occurrence than the prisoner, and he will deplore it during his whole life. He is willing to submit to any punishment you inflict. The unfortunate occurrence took place on the 13th of May, and on the 15th of May the prisoner went to the nearest magistrate, Mr. Tatlow, and gave himself up to justice. He has been in prison since then, and I trust, my lord, you will deal mercifully with him. He can receive the highest testimonials as to character....

His Lordship said that the case was a very melancholy one, and he thought the ends of justice would be met by sentencing the prisoner to a fortnight's imprisonment.

Bernard DUFFY, a rather respectable looking man, sixty three years of age, was indicted for having, on the 18h of May, 1862, written and caused to be sent to William NORTON, Esq., a threatening letter in the following effect:--

"As we are credibly informed, you purchased the property of a poor neighbour, who was evicted, and have received sufficient profit out of it, this is to command you to surrender same without delay. Were it not for your good character in other respects, I would not have borne with you so long. But I do not want to become your assassinator, or spill your blood without a regular notice. You have two choices--take one. If you do not resign the property before the 8th of June next, your blood will be upon your own head. I have a quick eye, a steady hand, and a sure aim, and will serve you with a billet, or rather a bullet, which will send you before a Lord greater than the lord of the soil--a Lord who sees all, hears all, knows all, and before whom the words of an agent or bailiff avail not.--Yours, "Whill o' the Wisp"

The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Henderson, Q. C., applied, on behalf of the Crown, to have the case postponed until next Assizes. He had no objection to have the prisoner admitted to bail.

The prisoner expressed his willingness to accede to this course. His Lordship allowed the case to be postponed--the prisoner to be admitted to bail--himself in £40 and two sureties in £20 each--to take his trial at next Assizes.

Michael DUFFY, aged 18, was indicted for participating in the same offence. Mr. Henderson, Q.C., applied to have this case also postponed, and was willing that the prisoner should stand out on his own recognizances to take his trial at next Assizes. Agreed to.

Hugh M'DONNELL, aged 22, was indicted for having, on the 13th of May, near Castlesaunderson, assaulted Alice POGUE, with intent to violate her person; a second count charged him with an indecent assault on Alice POGUE.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. Richardson, instructed by Mr. E. M'GUARAN.

The particulars of his case were given when it was before the magistrates at Belturbet Petty Session.--The girl's father worked as a labourer at Castlesaunderson, and, she was returning, after leaving him dinner, when in passing through a field in which were the prisoner and a man named ROONEY, the assault was committed. Alice POGUE, her mother, and father were examined by the Crown, and John ROONEY for the defence. The jury found the prisoner guilty of an indecent assault, and his lordship sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

John ROONEY, aged 19, charged on the calendar with having counseled and abetted Hugh M'DONNELL to assault Alice POGUE, with intent to violate her person, was not put on trial.

Several prisoners pleaded guilty. Sentences deferred.

The Court adjourned shortly before eight o'clock. There are only a few unimportant cases for trial to-day.

The commission will open in Enniskillen on Monday.


Captain M. PHILLIPS, chairman; other magistrates present--Thomas F. KNIPE, Esq., and John ROGERS, Esq.

The business before the Court to-day was very limited being only two cases of summary ejectment of two tenants on the property of Sir St. George GORME, Bart., brought by John ROGERS, Esq., J.P., agent for weekly holdings situate in Weaver-row, Belturbet, in both of which decrees for possession were given.

Henry M'CABE v. John TUITE & Co.

The summons to-day was against Mr. John TUITE and Mr. William C. TUITE, trading as John TUITE & Co., for 16s, car hire due to the complainant, and earned in the year 1862.

Mr. S. N. KNIPE, solicitor, appeared for the defendants, and applied for a postponement in consequence of Mr. John TUITE having left for England on that morning on business. He stated prior to the summons being served that he had his arrangements made to leave home.

Mr. M'LEOD objected to the adjournment, and recapitulation of former statements were made by him. After some consultation the Bench allowed the case to stand until next Court day, which, on account of the Assizes will not be held till Saturday, 2nd August.

The Court then adjourned.


CO. LEITRIM Carrick on Shannon, July 18


The Queen v. O'NEILL and Another

In this case the prisoners, consisting of the two O'NEILLs and another of the name of PINN, were charged with breaking into the house of Michael O'NEILL, and administering an oath to him that he would give up a certain holding of land, from which the father of the prisoners, one Charles O'NEILL, had been recently evicted, and with an assault upon the prosecutor, by which his life was endangered.

From the evidence of the prosecutor and his wife, it appeared that a party of six or eight persons on the night of the 29th of April last, about 10 or 11 o'clock, broke into his house, and knocked down and beat the old man; he seized a gun, but it did not go off when he attempted to pull the trigger. He was unable to identify any of them.

Catherine O'NEILL, wife of the prosecutor, stated that when interrogated they said they were the police; she identified the three prisoners as being of the party.

The prosecutors admitted that they knew the traversers from their childhood, and gave a good character of them.

The servant boy in the prosecutor's house swore he knew them intimately, but could not identify them on the occasion.

The servant girl of the house had previously known them, but could not identify them.

Mr. MALLEY addressed the jury for the prisoners, and relied upon the want of identification of the persecutors.

Witnesses were examined who proved that the prisoners were at home on the night in question.

The jury acquitted the prisoners.

Messrs. WHITE and HARKAN prosecuted. Messrs. CONCANNON and MALLEY defended the prisoners.

CO. LONGFORD Longford, July 19


On this day Captain NUGENT, High Sheriff of the county, took his place on the Bench, when the Grand Jury panel was called over and the following sworn for fiscal business by John E. O'FERRALL, Esq., Clerk of the Crown:--The Hon. L. H. King HARMAN, Fulke S. GREVILLE, M.P.; S. W. BLACKALL, George LEFROY, James W. BOUD, John SHULDHAM, Henry DOPPING, R. A. D. HEPENSTAL, Colonel MUSTERS, J. H. JESSOP, J. WILSON, J. EVERS, P. O'REILLY, J. S. LEDWITH, T. GOSSELIN, Loftus B. FOX, Alexander C. KINGSTONE, Joseph KINCAID, A. BOLE, H. O. F. GREGORY, St. G. R. JOHNSTON, M. QUINN, Charles S. LEVINGE, Esqrs.

Upon the Grand Jury being sworn, G. W. SLATER, Esq., complained to the High Sheriff that, although he was summoned, he was not called or sworn. The Under Sheriff explained that he was omitted from the panel through mistake, and that it was quite unintentional. Mr. SLATER said he was bound to accept the apology.

The following is the criminal calendar up to this day:-- Conspiracy to murder, 5; writing threatening letter, 1; malicious assaults, waylaying, and stabbing, 3; cattle stealing, 3; horse robbery, 1; throwing a stone at a railway train, 1; riots, attacking houses, malicious assaults, assaulting magistrates and police, and common assaults, 43.

The Commission will be opened by the Judges at 4 o'clock on Monday.

There is no civil business

The Grand Jury having retired, the Court took up the presentments


The venerable Archbishop of Armagh has succumbed to death, in the 89th year of his age and 67th of his episcopate. The Right Hon. and Most Rev. Lord John George de la Poer BERESFORD, died on Friday evening at Woburn Abbey, in the county Down, the seat of his relative, George Danbur, Esq. The deceased was third son of the first Marquis of Waterford, and was born at Tyrone House, in Dublin, on the 22nd of November, 1773. He was educated at Eton, and afterwards at Christ Church, Oxford. On the 2nd of April, 1795, he was admitted to the order of deacon at St. Kevin's Church, Dublin, by William, Archbishop of Tuam; and priest by the same prelate in the same church, on the 17th December, 1797. In 1796 he took the degree of M.A. and D.D. in 1805...The news of his demise shed a general gloom over Armagh, and the funeral bell of St. Patrick's Church was immediately tolled. It is believed his remain will be interred at Armagh, although the family is in Waterford. ...--Express.

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.