Cavan Observer
Published in Cavan, county Cavan
March 1, 1862

FATAL AFFRAY.--As some parties in the neighbourhood of Ballymagovern were returning home from a funeral on Sunday evening last, they stopped at a public house on the road, and had some drink, when a quarrel arose between the parties, and a man named Thomas FANNIN was stabbed in several places with a knife, from the effects of which he died on the following morning. An inquest was held on the body by James BERRY, Esq., coroner, and a verdict returned that "the deceased died from the effects of several stabs of a knife inflicted on him by a man named Hugh MAGUIRE." MAGUIRE is a shoemaker, and is in custody.--Enniskillen Reporter.

SUDDEN DEATHS.--On Saturday morning an aged man, named William B. HENSELL, died suddenly at his residence, Mecklenburg-street. Later in the day, Ellen HENSELL, sister to the deceased, also died suddenly at the same house. The aged brother and sister had lived together for a number of years.--Between ten and eleven o'clock, Bridget DONNELLY, who resided in a house in Lower Gardiner-street, died suddenly in Gloucester Place. She had been visiting some friends, and after leaving their house she expired almost immediately.--Between nine and ten o'clock on the same day, Nicholas BROWN, aged 32 years, residing at 33, Tighe-street, died suddenly, while in the act of sitting down to take breakfast.

CO. MEATH (From our Correspondent)

Trim, Monday, Feb. 24

The Commission was opened here at twelve p.m. by the Lord Chief Justice. The Grand Jury, who had been previously sworn for the discharge of fiscal business before the High Sheriff, Thomas BOYLAN, Esq., of Hilltown, were re-sworn.

The Queen v. Mary FARRELLY.

The prisoner was indicted for concealing the birth of her child. Messrs. BLAND, Q. C., GRIFFITH and M'KENNA prosecuted.

From the evidence for the prosecution it appeared that on the 5th of January last, the prisoner, who was a servant in the employment of Mr. T. MARTIN, hotel keeper, complained of having a toothache. When she came from her room she had a bundle under her arm, and was seen by her master going to the kitchen with this bundle. Mr. MARTIN, suspecting something wrong, searched about in the kitchen, and found the body of a new born child in an old box covered with straw under the kitchen table.

A number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution, and the prisoner was found guilty.

Chief Justice MONAHAN sat in the Record Court, and disposed of two civil bill appeals of no particular interest.

There is but record for trial here, and it is expected that both courts will be sitting for the disposal of criminal business tomorrow.


The Grand Jury were sworn in for the discharge of fiscal business in the Record of the Court-house at one o'clock on Monday, Alexander NESBITT, Esq., High Sheriff of the County, entered Court with the gentlemen summoned as Grand Jurors....

In reference to a presentment on the county at large, to "the representatives of Charles MADDEN, dead, contractor for five years for keeping in repair the forcing pumps, water closets, &c., of the Court-houses of the county, third half year--£13," a letter was received from James WANN, Esq., Manager of the Ulster Bank, Cavan, security (in conjunction with the late Mr. Patrick GANNON) for the late Mr. MADDEN, stating that he wished to withdraw his security, as he would not be responsible for the person holding the contract as representative of Mr. MADDEN. Some of the Grand Jurors considered that Mr. WANN was bound by his bond, and others that as the person for whom he was surety was dead, the bond was not binding on him....It was ultimately arranged that as the bond was virtually broken, sums should be presented to the four Court-house Committees for keeping in repair the forcing pumps, &c., until next Assizes.

W. D. GODFREY, late chimney sweep contractor, was allowed 3l, for half year's payment of his contract, due to him at expiration of his contract at Summer Assizes, 1860, the sum having been certified as correct.

The Messrs. MUSGRAVE, of Belfast, were allowed 7l 13s 4d for extra fittings and works done in connection with the contract for heating the Record Court...

Mr. Robert GERRARD was allowed 1l 5s for an overflow pipe to cistern in Cavan Court-house, per order of Committee.

Mr. William HAGUE, for repairs and baize covering to Foreman's desk in Grand Jury room, was allowed 4s 3d.

No 17. To William M'FADDEN,of Corlismore, to alter and remodel 76 perches footpath, mark a paved water channel along same, and place an iron grating thereon, road Cavan to Enniskillen, between the end of Erskine Terrace and end of Chapel gate--to be complete 1st November, 1862. Sureties--Thomas REILLY, Butlersbridge, farmer, and Sylvester WALLACE, Cavan, merchant.

The presentment was supported...on the ground that on the completion of the new railway extension to Cavan, the path will be a thoroughfare to two railways, two banks, the principal places of worship, and that the inhabitants of Cavan, who pay a large proportion of the county cess, are entitled to have their footpaths in proper order. A presentment for flagging the footpath was thrown out on a previous occasion, in consequence of which the present application was made. It was opposed by Mr. MOORE and other Grand Jurors, on the ground that the work was unnecessary, and that the cost would be too large. It was finally thrown out on a kind of understanding that a presentment for flagging will be brought in at the next Assizes.


Mr. Justice CHRISTIAN arrived in Cavan at 3 o'clock, from Longford, and entered the Crown Court at four o'clock. Her Majesty's Commission was read by Mr. Patrick CAFFREY, Deputy Clerk of the Peace, and the Grand Jury having been re-sworn.....

His Lordship then proceeded to fiat the presentments. On coming to the presentments for the barony of Upper Loughtee,

Mr. TULLY said he had to apply to his Lordship under the following circumstance. The Foreman of the Grand Jury had refused to certify a presentment for a new bridge at Ballyhaise--a portion of the old one having fallen--which was passed at the Baronial Sessions. He submitted that the 27th section of the Act 6 and 7 William IV. made it mandatory on the Foreman of the Grand Jury to certify for the new bridge...A part of the foundation of the old bridge had given way, and if floods occurred, as was probably, the rest might go also. The County Surveyor considered that the old bridge could be repaired...Having questioned the County Surveyor, his Lordship said he would comply with Mr. TULLY's application.

There was no opposition to the other presentments, which were accordingly fiated.

A petty jury having been sworn,

Patrick GALLIGAN was indicted for having, on the 21st of December 1851, assaulted John FLEMING, so as to endanger his life; with having assaulted him so as to cause actual bodily harm, and with having committed a common assault upon the said John FLEMING. The first count of the indictment was subsequently withdrawn by the Crown. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. RICHARDSON, instructed by Mr. Edward M'GAURAN.

Mr. HENDERSON, Q.C., and Mr. Yates JOHNSTON, prosecuted.

It appeared in evidence that some bill transactions had taken place between the prisoner and prosecutor--then good friends--prior to the assault, out of which the present case arose...It was alleged for the prosecution that the prisoner and his friends were about to drive away two cows, but for the defence it was contended that they only seized one cow, and that the second followed the one thus seized. FLEMING endeavoured to turn back the cows, and his wife came to his assistance. two men named O'BRIEN, who were working the an adjoining field, afterwards came up. The prisoner did not show FLEMING the decree or order. A scuffle took place...The prisoner absconded on the night of the assault, went to America, and remained there until August last. FLEMING swore informations against him before he left the Infirmary. FLEMING's wife produced the stone which the prisoner threw at her husband...Some witnesses were examined for the defence, and as to character. The character given by them of the prisoner was extremely good.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.

Judge CHRISTIAN....thought the cause of justice would be met by sentencing him to three months; imprisonment, with hard labour.

The Court then adjourned until a quarter to ten o'clock on Thursday morning, when a jury having been sworn,

James DOLAN was indicted for having on the 4th of December, 1861, waylaid and violently assaulted Robert STEPHENS.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty....

The prosecutor was returning from the fair of Ballyjamesduff on the day named in the indictment, when he was assaulted and stuck by some person, but, with the assistance of a man named CAFFREY, who was in his employment as a workman, he succeeded in getting rid of his assailant, and proceeded on his way home. He had not gone far when he was followed by a number of fellows, shouting "Stop the Souper," and "Stop the pickpocket." He ran away to avoid his pursuers, and CAFFREY left him. He succeeded in reaching the house of a man named John LATIMORE, who lives at the crossroads near Ballyjamesduff....... LATIMOR's wife went for the police. The prisoner was one of those who came in, and began to search for STEPHENS...FLEMING, dreading violence, rushed out and was struck with a stick....He was followed by forty or fifty fellows (who) beat him in a shocking manner...He lay insensible for a long time...was conveyed to LATIMOR's house, where he was attended by Doctor MAWHEENY...he was under Dr. MAWHENNY's care for four weeks.....The jury returned a verdict of guilty without leaving the box, and his Lordship sentenced the prisoner to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Mary Anne LEDDY pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with having stolen a shawl, value 5s, the property of Mary KELLAGHER. His Lordship said he would look over the informations in the case in the course of the day.

Peter CUSACK was indicted for a felonious assault on Edward DRUNG on the 24th December, 1861, so as to put the said Edward DRUNG in fear and danger of his life, and for having stolen a bottle of whiskey, the goods of the said Edward DRUNG.

When asked to plead the prisoner (a simple looking farmer) said he "couldn't rightly tell whether he took the bottle or not, as he was too drunk to mind it;" he "wasn't rightly sure;"; he "couldn't say exactly:...At length, by the advice of Mr. Samuel Nixon KNIPE, who appeared for him, he entered a plea of not guilty....The High Constable of the barony of Tullygarvey gave the prisoner a most excellent character. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second count, with a strong recommendation to mercy, as they believe he did not know what he was doing when he committed the offence.

His Lordship sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. [This sentence caused considerable surprise in the Court.]

Cornelius REILLY and Patrick REILLY were indicted for having, at Butlersbridge, on the 4th of December, assaulted John BRADY, so as to cause him grievous bodily harm, and with having stabbed and wounded the said John BRADY

Cornelius REILLY pleaded guilty, and stated that he was under the influence of drink when he committed the offence, and had been provoked and assaulted previously.

Patrick REILLY, by the advice of his attorney...pleaded guilty to a common assault, with which Mr. HENDERSON, Q.C., on behalf of the Crown, expressed himself satisfied....His Lordship said he would read over the informations in the case before passing sentence on the prisoners.

James M'DERMOT was indicted for an assault on Constable SUNDERLAND, whilst engaged in the discharge of his duty

Mr. James Armstrong said that Mr. Dowse--who was counsel for the prisoner--was engaged in the other Court, but he would recommend the prisoner to put in a plea of guilty. The prisoner consented to do so, and was put back to await sentence.

Peter M'CABE was indicted for having stolen a wheelbarrow, the property of Peter SMITH and having it in his possession knowing it to have been stolen. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. Edward M'GAURAN.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.

William HETHERINGTON, Thomas REILLY, Thomas HETHERINGTON, Patrick FARRELL, Peter MASTERSON, Thos. FITZPATRICK, Thaddeus FARRELL, Patrick REILLY, John CARTY, and Edward BERRY were indicted for having, with others, on the 8th of August, 1861, at Farrelly's crossroads, near Arvagh, unlawfully assembled and disturbed the peace; with having caused a riot and affray; with having assaulted Edward DEGNAN so as to cause him grievous bodily harm; with a common assault on Andrew DEGNAN, and with a common assault on Michael BURNS, Patrick PRIOR, Bernard BRADY, Michael PRIOR, and Bernard M'NIBO.

The prisoners pleaded not guilty on the several counts....The jury convicted the prisoners on these counts, and his Lordship sentenced them to three months; imprisonment each, with hard labour.

Hugh MAGUIRE was indicted for the murder of Patrick FANNON, at Ballymagauran, on the evening of Sunday last. The prisoner pleaded that he was not ready for trial, and the case stands adjourned to the next assizes, the prisoner to remain in custody.

John O'BRIEN was indicted for that he, on the 6th of December, 1861, now having the fear of God before his eyes, but being instigated by the Devil, did kill and slay one Thomas MAGUIRE, against the peace and statute. The prisoner pleaded not guilty...

The case arose out of the melancholy accident which occurred during the erection of the bridge on the Railway road adjoining this town in connection with the works of the Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway Company's extension line between Clones and Cavan, the prisoner being a foreman mason in the employment of the contractors, Messrs. GREEN and KING. At the inquest held at Cavan on Saturday, the 7th December, before William POLLOCK, Esq., Coroner, an open verdict was returned, and the prisoner was subsequently sent for trial....We gave a full report of the evidence adduced...The only additional witness examined at the trial was a Mr. M'ILWAINE, time keeper on the line. His evidence was not very material.

His Lordship then charged the jury at considerable length.... that their duty was to inquire whether MAGUIRE's death was caused by the negligence of the prisoner.

The jury retired, and after remaining in their room for some time, the Foreman (Mr. T. W. SIXSMITH) stated....that there was no probability of their agreeing to a verdict. The Jury were then recalled to the box, and the Foreman stated that nine jurors were for acquitting and three for convicting the prisoner.

His Lordship said that if they agreed to a verdict before ten o'clock, he would return to the Court. A constable and three bailiffs were then sworn to take charge of the jury, and the Court rose. Subsequently (about eight o'clock) the jury agreed to a verdict of not guilty.


His Lordship entered the Court at ten o'clock on Friday morning,and proceeded to sentence the prisoners put back on the previous day.

Rose HANRATTY was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, from the date of her committal, for obtaining two cwt of meal under false pretences.

Mary Anne LEDDY to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, from the date of her committal, for larceny.

Mary RUDDON, similar charge, to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Cornelius REILLY, for assault and stabbing, to nine months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and his brother, Patrick REILLY, to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, for a common assault.

John M'DERMOTT, for assaulting a constable, two months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

Peter CUSACK, sentenced to six months' imprisonment, on Thursday, for stealing a bottle of whiskey, had his sentence commuted to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

A Petty Jury was then sworn, and Robert GAMBLE was indicted for that he, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being instigated by the devil, did, on the 10th of March, 1861, kill and slay a certain female infant child, born of Anne DUNNE, otherwise ROGERS. The prisoner pleaded not guilty....

Mr. HENDERSON, Q.C., stated the case for the Crown. The prisoner was a farmer, and resided with his mother at a place called Ruskey. Anne DUNNE, or ROGERS, lived with him as a servant, and an improper connection was formed between them. The result was that Anne ROGERS was, on the 8th of March 1861, delivered of a female child at the house of a woman named O'HALLORAN, in the town of Cootehill. She was attended by a midwife named BRADLEY, and visited previously by Dr. SHARPE. The child was a healthy one. Anne ROGERS brought the child to the prisoner's house, six miles from Cootehill, on the Sunday following her confinement the (10th). On Sunday, the 17th, the body of the child was found buried in the graveyard attached to the Corneary Meeting House, and, according to the evidence of Dr. SHARPE, who made a post mortem examination, the child met its death by strangulation. After the coroner's inquest ROGERS and the prisoner were arrested and committed for trial. The Grand Jury threw out the bills against the prisoner at the last Assizes, and ROGERS was put upon her trial, and acquitted. She now came forward as a witness against the prisoner, and her evidence directly charged him with strangling the child in the barn attached to the house.

There were a great number of witnesses examined; but as the trial did not terminate until near six o'clock in the evening, we are unable to report it in full.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.

This closed the Crown business. Their Lordships leave town by special train at 11 o'clock to-day.

March 8, 1862

LONGEVITY--A man named PHILLIPS, who resided at Beyhey, near this town, died on Monday last, at the extraordinary age of 114 years. Same day, his wife was buried, aged upwards of 100 years. He enjoyed good health and worked regularly on his farm till within the last few months.--Balllyshannon Herald.


There was only one case for hearing before his Worship on Saturday--a summons against Messrs. GILBORNE and SIXSMITH, 89 Main street, for placing boxes and good opposite their premises, on three successive days during the week.

The Town Sergeant having proved the case,

Mr. SIXSMITH wished to know who made the complaint upon which the summons had been issued. The Town Sergeant said an order to that effect ad been placed on the minute book of the Town Commissioners at their last meeting.

Mr. SIXSMITH said that on coming to the Court his attention had been directed to a number of barrels opposite one door, boxes at another, a horse and car at a third--all passing unnoticed.

The Town Sergeant said the barrels were opposite Mr. Phillip BRADY's door, who was getting his house repaired.

His Worship read the section of the Act relative to obstructions...In the present case, however, he would only fine in the costs.

Mr. SIXSMITH said he considered he had a right to place his goods out to view, and requested his Worship to allow the case to go in the ordinary course, as he protested against the whole proceeding.

His Worship said that under these circumstances he would impose a fine of 20s and costs--a warrant to issue in case of non payment.


Magistrates present:--Theophilus THOMPSON and William BABINGTON, Esqrs.

Mary CLARKE and Margaret CARMICHAEL, two pauper inmates of the Cavan Workhouse, were charged with having--the former cut up a blanket, the property of the Guardians of the poor of Cavan Union, and made a petticoat of it, and the latter with having a similar blanket in her possession also transformed into a petticoat. CLARKE submitted, and received a good character from the Porter. Carmichael alleged that she got the petticoat from another girl, and did not know that it was made out of one of the workhouse blankets. The charge against her was proved by the Matron of the Workhouse

The Chairman said the property of the union should be protected against such parties, and sentenced CLARKE to a week's imprisonment, and CARMICHAEL to one month's imprisonment.

Charles SHERIDAN had a civil bill process for 11s l8d, the blacksmith's work, against John MAGUINNESS. The defendant not appear, and a decree, with costs, was given.

John GAVIN, Bernard REILLY, John GALLIGAN, and Patrick SHERIDAN were charged with an assault on Thomas BOYLE.

According to the informations and evidence of complainant (a quiet, inoffensive looking man), he is a native of the county Louth, and came to this town, to work as a mason, about a month since; he lodged at the house of Mr. Adam LOWDEN, butcher; on the night of Sunday, the 24rd ult., he went from the back yard of his lodging house into the kitchen of Mr. Thomas CULLEN's public house; there was an old man named BARRY sitting at the fire; he sat down also; shortly afterwards he heard four or five persons talking and one of them said "go for the baker;" John GALLIGAN and the other defendant then came into the kitchen and one of them asked complainant "what brings you here;" they then beat him in a most shocking manner.

Mr. John Armstrong, who appeared for defendants, cross-examined BOYLE at some length, but did not succeed in shaking his evidence....At the request of the defendants, the case was allowed to stand over for some time, for the evidence of BARRY, but their messenger returned without him...The Chairman said that himself and brother magistrate considered the charge clearly proved...the defendants should each be imprisoned for one calendar month, with hard labour....Mr. Armstrong made a strong appeal to the Court to have fines substituted for the imprisonment, especially in the case of GAVIN (a car driver), who has a wife and family to support, and who expressed his willingness to pay any fine...Head Constable MOORE hoped the Court would adhere to its decision, as he had reason to believe that the fines would be made up in a few minutes, and would prove no punishment to the defendants.

The Chairman said that it was no pleasure, but on the contrary extremely painful to him or any other magistrate, to send a man to prison....however, they could not alter their decision...He regretted that the Court could not allow BOYLE his costs, but they had no power to do so.

There were a few processes, but no other case of interest before the Court.....The Court then rose.

COUNTY ARMAGH Armagh, Monday, March 3.

Mr. Justice FITZGERALD took his seat in the Crown Court this morning at ten o'clock.


Terence M'ILDUFF, sen.; John HEYBURN, James MORROW, James M'GEOUGH, John SPELMAN, Terence M'ILDUFF, jun.; Murtagh M'ILDUFF, William WALSHE, John M'CANN, Bernard M'ILDUFF, Matthew M'CANN, jun; Denis STEWART, jun.; John DOON, Joseph M'NIECE, Hugh M'CANN, John M'CAUL, Henry M'CANN, Henry KANE, James DOON, Hugh M'DOWELL, Alice M'ILDUFF and Catharine DOON, were then put forward and indicted for riot and assault, committed upon the 12th of July, 1860. The traversers are persons belonging to the Roman Catholic party which was concerned in the affray.

The Right Hon. the Attorney General, before the traversers pleaded to the indictment, said--I think that this is the time for me to intervene. I have great pleasure in stating to your lordship, from a communication made to me this morning, that the Court will be spared the necessity of a troublesome and protracted investigation....That indictment regards the deplorable transactions of a long past day--the 12th of July, 1860j--when on the occasion of the passage of an Orange procession through a Roman Catholic district, an unhappy collision took place, resulting in riot, disorder and loss of human life. Several prosecutions were instituted, on the informations of the Catholic party...But no informations were sworn against the Roman Catholics until last October...Fourteen persons plead guilty upon the indictment for riot, but as to two young women and several boys included in it, and some persons who appear to have suffered from severe and dangerous gunshot wounds, besides another person who is represented, and I believe truly to be of weak intellect, I decline to press the prosecution against them....The case now comes before your lordship, and taking all the circumstances into account, you will deal with the traversers as your lordship's sense of justice will dictate....

The following traversers then pleaded guilty to the charge:--James MORROW, John HEYBURN, Matthew SPELLMAN, Terence M'ILDUFF, jun., John M'CANN, Matthew M'CANN, jun., Denis STEWART, jun., Joseph M'NEICE, Hugh M'CANN, John M'CAUL, Henry M'CANN, Henry KANE, and James DOON.

Against the remaining prisoners the Crown entered a nolle prosequi.

FEARFUL ACCIDENT TO A CORONER AND JURY--On yesterday (Monday) Dr. WHITE, one of the city coroners, assembled a jury for the purpose of holding an inquest on the body of a girl named Maryanne CAVANAGH. The coroner and jury, with several members of the police force, met in a room on the third storey of the house. The body of the deceased was laid out in an adjoining room, and the jury, accompanied by some of the police, proceeded there for the purpose of viewing the body....The floor of the apartment unhappily proved unequal to sustain the weight, and gave way, precipitating a number of persons into the room beneath. The scene which ensued was very alarming while it lasted. The coroner and some others escaped by having remained in the room where all had originally assembled.. As soon as assistance was obtained, it was found that several persons were hurt. One of the jury, named Joseph MORLEY, was seriously injured; another, named John WALSH, had his leg broken. Sergeant HALL, 19A, sustained a contused wound of the scalp, and Constable Patrick MURPHY, 103A, received several contusions. The wounded persons were taken to the Meath Hospital.--Saunders.

March 15, 1862


Magistrates present:--William BABINGTON, Esq., in the Chair; Andrew CARDEN, Esq., William SMITH, Esq., and William Murray HICKSON, Esq., R.M.

Catherine MORGAN was brought up in custody, charged on the informations of the Porter of the Cavan Workhouse with having, on or about the 17th March, 1861, absconded from the Cavan Workhouse with one wrapper, one petticoat, and one chemise, the property of the Guardians of the Poor of Cavan Union, and with having deserted her infant child, by leaving it after her in the Workhouse. Miss MORGAN and her sister (who has two illegitimate children in the Workhouse) have been burdens on the ratepayers for many years past. The latter, after deserting her child, absconded with a "ragman," and did not return to the Workhouse until Tuesday last, when she applied for admission. The Porter informed her that he had a warrant against her, and she favoured him with some classic advice in return.

She was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for the child desertion.

Catherine REILLY summoned William HUMPHRYS for a balance of wages, he having turned her out of his house before the expiration of the term for which he hired her as servant. Defendant's daughter contradicted many of plaintiff's statements. As there appeared to have been faults on both sides, the Court ruled that plaintiff should return to her service; both parties to be free to get fresh summonses in case of any future "casus belli."

Edward MULLIGAN charged William RAHILL with assault and battery, or rather his sworn informations charged him for it, for the worthy Ned (popularly known as the "Roarer") had to be called several times before he answered to his name, and the aid of the police was required to bring him from the hall of the Court House to the witness table. It appeared that the delay was caused by the attempts of defendant and his friends to induce him to "settle" the question at issue without the interference of the Court. Once sworn, however, he gave his evidence with considerable vigour, and stated that RAHILL (who is his stepson-in-law, and known by the ornothological cognomen of the "wren") assaulted him at his own house, and gave him a blow of a pair of tongs over the dexter optic. The region of the alleged blow was covered with transverse stripes of sticking plaster, and appeared to be in anything but a convalescent state. The hostilities arose upon defendant having come to his house in classic and peaceful "Mud" whilst complainant and his wife were enjoying "a glass of sperrits" and "a little aggravation," and the blow was what complainant termed "a back skelp," and was the third attempt which defendant made upon his life.

RAHILL stated that Mr. MULLIGAN's house was conducted on anything but proper principles.....The Court determined to postpone the family feud ("a very pretty quarrel as it stands") until the next Court day--RAHILL to be at liberty to summon his stepfather for any cause of complaint he may have against him....The parties left Court with an unanimous cry of "long may ye live, yer Worships."

Constable M'CARTHY, of Stradone, summoned James LEE for breach of the Sabbath. He saw defendant's servant men, with two horses, conveying two cartloads of corn to a mill on Sunday week. Defendant did not appear, but one of his servants attended.....The Chairman having read the section bearing on the offence, said that he considered the Constable had acted very properly in bringing the case, but he thought, from the wording of the Act, that it was against the servant, and not against the employer, that the summons should have been brought.--Defendant's servant was fined in the costs.

Catherine M'GOVERN was summoned on a charge of having stolen £9, the monies of Adam LOWDEN, of Cavan, Mrs. LOWDEN was the principal witness, and from her evidence it appeared that she had £6 belonging to a man named HOLMES, and £9 belonging to her husband, in a box in her bed room. Between nine and ten o'clock on the night of the 14th ult, HOLMES came to her for £ silver; she went to her box, and took out the £15, leaving her own £9 on the lid of the chest; she then went by the back entrance into Mr. CULLEN's public house, and got the change for HOLMES; she was only a few minutes absent; she locked her trunk before she went for the change, but forgot to put into it the £9 which she had left on the lid...she had no doubt that the money was taken by the accused.

A woman proved that she heard the accused say she had the money, and would "wear it in splendour in summer." Another woman proved that she saw the mother of the accused hiding some bank notes near the fire place of her own house. The case was postponed for a week.

The Court then rose.

March 22, 1862


Magistrates present:--William BABINGTON, Esq., Chairman; Nathaniel MONTGOMERY, Esq., and William SMITH, Est.


Plaintiff and defendant are father and son, and the summons was brought by the father for trespass, assault, and an attempt to take forcible possession. It appeared that the defendant married the daughter of a man named GALLIGAN some time ago, and received with her a "fortune" of £40. He gave £20 of it to his father on condition that he would give him six acres of his farm. The father alleged that the 20l. was "forced into his pocket," that he only promised to give the six acres of land on condition that his landlord (Major MOORE) allowed him to do so, and that, as Major MOORE would not consent to a subdivision of the farm he could not give the six acres to his son. He also alleged that his son "drew" the £20 from him after his marriage. The offence charged in the summons arose through an attempt to be the part of defendant to enforce his supposed right to the six acres of land, but no assault was proved by complainant.

Mr. John ARMSTRONG appeared for the defendant, and the Court having heard the evidence on both sides, dismissed the case.

William Armitage MOORE, Esq., J.P., v. Philip ROGERS, William LEAHEY, James SMITH, and Terence REILLY.

Mr. John Armstrong stated the plaintiff's case. Some time since Mr. MOORE, the plaintiff, let a portion--one Irish perch--of a quarry in the townland of Drumealis to a firm in Dublin--the Messrs. Daniel CROW and Sons. A written agreement was entered into, and the Irish perch of quarry to be used by the Messrs. CROW and Sons was specified and laid out by landmarks. The Messrs. CROW lodged £10 with Mr. MOORE as guarantee for any damage which might be done by their workmen whilst using the quarry, the money to be returned by Mr. MOORE in case such damage were made good, and, in the case the Messrs. CROW required any other portion of the quarry than that specified in the agreement, a new agreement was to be entered into. The Messrs. CROW sent down Mr. ROGERS, their foreman, who employed the other defendants. It was alleged...that in quarrying for stones, Mr. ROGERS exceeded the Irish perch agreed for, and quarried upwards of one hundred loads of stones from a portion of the quarry to which he had not right whatever.....After a long hearing of the evidence, a suggestion was made by the Court, and agreed to by Mr. MOORE and Mr. ROGERS that Mr. James BRADY, engineer, should accompany Mr. MOORE and Mr. ROGERS to the quarry, and ascertain whether Mr. ROGERS had exceeded the Irish perch agreed for. On the return of the parties....Mr. BRADY deposed that...he found that Mr. ROGERS had considerably exceeded the portion to which he was entitled....At the conclusion of the evidence the Court imposed a fine of 5s, with £1 compensation, but as Mr. MOORE stated that he did not wish to press for punishment of a supposed right, the Court only fined Mr. ROGERS 5s., and the costs of the four summonses.

Alexander M'MANUS v. James SMITH

This was a charge of assault, and the complainant asked permission to withdraw it, as defendant was going to Scotland, but the Court decided upon hearing the case. According to the informations of the complainant, he was standing at the corner of Bridge street on the night of the 11th instant, when defendant, without having received any provocation, came up to him, struck, and knocked him down. Defendant was drunk at the time, and they had no quarrel previously. Defendant admitted the charge, and expressed sorrow for what he had done, stating that he had "promised against whiskey for seven years." The Court took a merciful view of the case, and only fined defendant 2s 6d and costs, or 18 hours' imprisonment.

Edward MULLIGAN v. William RAHILL, and William RAHILL v. Edward MULLIGAN

The first of these cases was the charge of assault reported in our last impression, and the second case was a counter charge of assault brought by RAHILL, who succeeded in turning the tables upon Ned, and convincing the Court that that worthy had been the aggressor in the family squabble out of which the case arose. The Court dismissed the first case, and ordered Ned to enter into bail--himself in the sum of £5, and two sureties in £2 10s. each, to keep the peace, or, in default, to be imprisoned for one month. He was allowed a week to find bail and pay the costs.


The summons in this case was brought for injury to a fence, the property of complainant, and it was referred, by consent, to the landlord or agent of the parties.

Richard TILSON v. John FLANGAN

This summons was for interfering with, closing up, and removing a gate from a foot pass to which complainant was entitled, and which he held under a lease or deed. The case was postponed for a week, to give defendant an opportunity of restoring the pass to complainant.

John LAMB v. William BRAVENDER

The defendant--a young lad--was charged with having unlawfully left complainant's service. The Court, having heard the evidence, ordered defendant to return to Mr. LAMB's service, and he engaged to do so.

Peter SMITH v. Honora REILLY

The defendant was charged with having stolen a sheet, the property of complainant. A window had been broken in complainant's house, and the stolen sheet was afterwards found in the house where defendant lodged.

Susan SULLIVAN v. Same.

Defendant was charged with stealing a shawl, the property of complainant. The shawl was found in a pawn office in this town. The defendant alleged that she purchased the shawl. She was sent for trial to the Quarter Sessions on both charges.


This was a civil bill process for 19s, 8d, balance of £2 6s 8d, conacre rent. Defendant disputed the amount, but plaintiff sustained his case, and obtained a decree for the amount claimed, with costs.

James MAGUIRE v. John GOGGINS, Susan GOGGINS, Letitia GOGGINS, George TUMMON, and William LOUGHIRTON.

Mr. KNIPE applied to have the four first-named defendants admitted to bail--LOUGHIRTON being already out on bail. They were charged with having assaulted complainant when returning from the last fair of Cavan. Complainant had sworn informations, and was unable to attend, as Doctor HUMPHREYS, of Ballyhaise, under whose care he was, had not yet given a certificate; but if the Court would consent to hear a portion of the evidence for the defence, they would be perfectly satisfied that there was, in reality, no charge against them, and that the blow given by one of the female defendants was for the purpose of saving her brother's life when he was attached by MAGUIRE. The defendants were all respectable parties, and it was a great hardship upon them to remain in prison...After some further conversation, the Court declined to hear any evidence or admit the prisoners to bail. They were accordingly remanded for a week, and the witnesses were ordered to attend on next Court day.

Adam LOWDEN v. Catherine M'GOVERN

This case, in which the defendant was charged with having stolen £9, in bank notes, the property of complainant, stood over from last Court day. Mr. John Armstrong appeared for complainant, and Mr. Knipe for defendant. The Court having heard the evidence, did not consider there were sufficient grounds for sending the accused for trial, and dismissed the case.


The complainant charged defendant, who is a relative of the defendant in the previous case, with having used abusive language towards her in the streets of Cavan. The Chairman informed complainant that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case, and it was accordingly dismissed.

Samuel SMITH v. Robert WOODS

This was a process for 5s 5½d, cash lent. Plaintiff obtained a decree, with costs.


A summons for 12s 8d income tax due upon premises in the town of Cavan, held by defendant. The case was postponed from the last Court day, as some of the Magistrates then present considered that it was against the landlord of the premises held by defendant proceedings should have been taken in default of obtaining the amount from defendant. Mr. REA produced the Act under which he sought to recover, and the Court, after some consultation, gave a decree for the amount claimed, with costs.

The police had two men summoned as witnesses in a case of malicious stabbing of a mare, belonging to a man named Phillip ALLEN, who resides at Lisnagoa. On the morning of the 2d January last ALLEN discovered that the mare had been stabbed between the forelegs, evidently with the intention of killing or disabling it. The mare did not die, but ALLEN is about to seek compensation off the county, and the witnesses were summoned by the police with a view of obtaining information as to the perpetrator of the cowardly and brutal outrage. One of the witnesses was a man who had driven the mare to Cootehill on the 1st of January. The information obtained from the witness was not very important, and it appeared that one of them refused to impart the little which he professed to know of the case to Constable HEUSTON, when questioned on the subject by him. The Court could make no order upon the evidence adduced, but further steps will be taken by police.

There were about twenty summonses for arrears of county cess, at the suit of Mr. Thomas REILLY, High Constable. Two were dismissed on the ground of insufficient service, and one was adjourned until next Court day, the defendant being unable to attend, and it being stated on his behalf that he had tendered the account one by him before the summons was served. A certificate was produced from Dr. MALCOMSON stating that he was too ill to attend. In other cases decrees were given, and Mr. BRADY, the sub-collector, applied for the full costs in each case.

The Chairman (who was the only magistrate then present) declined to allow any but the ordinary costs of Court. The sums due were small, and he would not think himself justified in giving costs as large as the amount for which the summonses were brought...These cases were the last heard, and the business of the court did not terminate until near half past four o'clock.

CENTENARIAN--Died on Sunday last, at Hendrick-street, in this city, Eliza DONNELLY, at the advanced age of 102 years. She was born in 1760, being of French descent, and possessed all her faculties up to her death. She was the mother of 15 children.

ACCIDENTAL DEATH--A sad accident happened on Saturday at a place a mile beyond Kesh. Persons name DUNLOP were ploughing and a loosing the horses in the evening one of them named William, a young lad, was placed on one of the animals. The horses began to play, and the one on which the boy rode ran off. The lad fell of; but his foot got entangled in the harness, and he was dragged in that way to the house. He was then insensible, and never spoke till he died on Monday night. An inquest was held on the body by Montgomery D. NIXON, Esq., and a verdict returned in accordance with the facts mentioned.--Impartial Reporter.

March 29, 1862


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

Matthew CONATY v. Patrick SHERIDAN

The summons was brought for a refusal on the part of defendant to deliver up possession of a house in the town of Cavan, the property of complainant, tenantcy (sic) having expired by notice to quit, &c. A decree for possession was given, defendant being allowed a week to get another house.

Francis M'CABE v John FAY

Complainant's herd was driving three cows to the water, by way of the archway opposite Mr. Edward KENNEDY's establishment in this town, which is a public pass, on the 15th inst. Defendant, who is a cobbler, and works with his father in the archway, kicked one of the cows, and when returning from the water, defendant administered another severe kick to one of the cows.

Defendant alleged that he was afraid the cows would trample on him, and he put his foot before one of them to prevent any accident of the kind.

The Chairman said he never heard of a man putting his foot before a cow to prevent it from trampling on him. The kick of the cow was a very cruel action, and repeating the offence on a second occasion added to its cruelty Defendant had left himself liable to a penalty of £5, or two months' imprisonment, and he might think himself very leniently dealt with when allowed to escape with a fine of 2s 6d, or 48 hours' imprisonment. He was taken into custody.

William Armitage MOORE, Esq., J.P., v. John DUFFY, William LEARY, and John FITZPATRICK

Mr. John Armstrong appeared for the complainant. The summons was brought for trespass on a quarry at Drumell's the property of the complainant, one Irish perch of which he let to the Messrs. CROW, of Dublin...The Chairman strongly condemned the conduct of the defendants particularly that of LEARY, who must have known that he was exceeding the portion to which he was entitled. They had left themselves liable to a heavy penalty, but the Court would not fix the penalty until the next Court day. If any further trespass took place in the interim, the penalty which the Court felt inclined to impose would be doubled. The delay was for the purpose of giving Mr. CROW--who had acted throughout in a most honourable and straightforward manner--an opportunity of arranging the entire matter to Mr. MOORE's satisfaction.

James LEE v. Michael CUSACK

There are two summonses at the suit of complainant. The first stated that defendant, on the 17th of March, at Killymeehan, in this county, presented a loaded gun at complainant, and threatened to shoot him, and put him in fear and danger of his life...The second summons was for £2 0s 8d, balance of wages which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff as his hired servant, from 12th November, 1861 to 14th May 1862...The Court, having heard the statements on both sides regarding the two summonses, considered that if the charges of misconduct preferred against complainant were true, defendant had a right to discharge him from his employment previously, as it appeared complainant had asked him to do. They considered defendant's conduct with regard to the presentation of the gun most unjustifiable. With regard to the second summons--that for wages--they gave a decree for the sum claimed, and the Chairman said they would give 1l. costs had complainant's conduct been without reproach during the time he was in defendant's service. With regard to the first summons--for presenting the gun, and threatening to take complainant's life, they postponed the case for a week....The pistol produced in evidence was given back to complainant.

The Guardians of the Poor of Cavan Union v. Patrick LATIMER

The defendant was charged with refusing to support his wife, by which means she was obliged to become a pauper in the Cavan Workhouse. When the case was first called defendant was unable to come upon the table, being lying in a kind of fit on the flags of the hall. Medical assistance was sent for by their Worships, and the case was allowed to stand over. In the course of half an hour or so, it was again called, and the defendant and his wife came upon the table. A more miserable creature than the defendant it would be almost impossible to conceive--tall, gaunt, livid, and well stricken in years....The wife, who seemed to be older than the defendant, is a thin, sharp-faced, and not very prepossessing looking old woman. She stated, amid considerable laughter in Court, that she was only married to the defendant six weeks ago; that on the 11th inst, the bridegroom refused to support her, and that she had been compelled, in consequence, to seek admission at the Workhouse....Defendant then proceeded to state as well as he could that he never "raised a hand" to his spouse since his union with her, and that she had money lent out at interest. Both statements were denied by Mrs. LATIMER...No other settlement could be made between them, the Court sentenced defendant to a fortnight's imprisonment. Mrs. LATIMER descended the table with a light step, as if satisfied that she had performed her duty as a good Christian and loving wife. Her wretched husband sat in a kind of torpor until removed to gaol.

The Guardians of the Poor of Cavan v. John M'CAFFREY

This was another charge of wife desertion. The defendant is a labourer in the employment of Mr. S. N. Knipe--He has been married for some years, and had civil bill processes before the Chairman of Quarter Session on more than one occasion relative to some land which, in addition to a "fortune" of £15, he believed he had a right to expect with his wife. He has been separated from his wife for a considerable time, and applied for admission to the Workhouse a few weeks ago, with her infant child. The defendant was present on that occasion, and under threat of a prosecution, agreed to allow her 2s 6d per week, as subsistence money. He paid that sum each week until a fortnight ago, and alleged that he would have continued to do so had his wife taken the trouble to ask for it. She applied for admission to the Workhouse on Tuesday, the 25th inst., when the Board ordered proceedings to be taken against the defendant....Defendant was sentenced to a month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

Phillip REILLY, Thomas REILLY, Patrick BRADY, John HAGUE, and Peter FITZPATRICK were each fined 5s, including costs, for a riot in a public house in this town, on the evening of the 17th instant, and for an assault on James SMITH, at the same time and place....

Maria REILLY and Margaret Connolly were charged with having stolen £9 10 from the person of James MARN. The prisoners were defended by Mr. Armstrong. The evidence against them was not very conclusive, and as the prosecutor expressed a wish to withdraw the charge, the case was dismissed.

Letitia GOGGINS, Susan GOGGINS, John GOGGINS, and William LOUGHERTON appeared to answer the charge of having assaulted James MAGUIRE, when returning from the last fair of Cavan--MAGUIRE was in attendance, the Dispensary Doctor who attended him having given a certificate that his life was out of danger. Mr. J. Armstrong appeared for the accused, and the informations of MAGUIRE having been read over, the case was postponed for a week, in order to give some of the accused an opportunity of obtaining cross summonses and securing the attendance of witnesses.

A woman named Eliza SMITH was sent for trial to the Quarter Sessions, on a charge of child desertion.

There were several other cases heard, but none of them were of much public interest, and the Court did not rise until five o'clock.


On Saturday last an inquest was held in the County Infirmary, Cavan, before William POLLOCK, Esq., one of the Coroners for this county, and a respectable jury, on the body of a child named John BRADY, aged 18 months, the son of a labouring man, who died in the Infirmary on the previous evening. It appeared that on Thursday, the 20th instant, the mother was washing in her house, some distance from Cavan, her husband being absent at his work. About one o'clock she had occasion to go for turf to a bog about a quarter of a mile distant from her house, leaving deceased and an elder child, aged about four years, in the house. She returned in about 20 minutes, and found deceased standing in the corner, dreadfully burned, and his clothes, which the elder child had taken off, completely burned. The poor little fellow was removed to the County Infirmary, where he died on the following evening. The jury returned a verdict of "accidental death."



And immediate possession given.

The Executor and Trustee of Mrs. Rose REILLY (late of the Farnham Arms, Cavan), will offer by public competition, Testatrix's interest in the Lands of SHANNOW, containing 75 acres, Irish Plantation measure, held by lease for two young lives, or thirty one years, under Anthony O'REILLY, Esq., at the yearly rent of £20 sterling. This Farm is situated within two miles of Cavan town, on the leading road to Ballinagh. The Land in itself affords many very rich facilities, Bog, Meadow, &c. The Sale will be held in the Farnham Arms Hotel, precisely at 1 o'clock, on Friday, 11th April next, observing respectfully the due concurrence of the Landlord. For further particulars please apply to Matthew TULLY, Esq., or

George CHADWICK, Auctioneer.



A LIST of Applications received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking EXCISE LICENSES for the Sale of BEER, SPIRITS, &c.....On Tuesday, the 1st day of April, 1862, immediately after the Grand Jury shall have been sworn:--

No. 1 FARRELLY, Patrick, Bridge-street, Cavan, parish of Urney and barony of Upper Loughtee.
No. 2 WILLIAMSON, Hugh, Dublin street, Ballyjamesduff, parish of Castelraghan, and barony of Castleraghan.



A LIST of Applications received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking EXCISE LICENSES..On Friday, the 4th day of April, 1862....

No. 1 DOLAND, Hugh, Blacklion, parish of Killinagh, and barony of Tullyhaw.
No. 2 M'HUGH, Thomas Tarmon, parish of Killinagh and barony of Tullyhaw.



A LIST of Applications received by the Clerk of the Peace from Persons seeking EXCISE LICENSES...On Monday, the 7th day of April 1862...

No. 1 CLARKE, Peter, Bailieborough, parish of Bailieborough and barony of Clonkee.
No. 2 HALL, Margaret, Shercock, parish of Shercock, and barony of Clonkee.
No. 3 MAHOOD, Robert, Tullylurken, parish of Shercock, and barony of Clonkee.
No. 4 SHEILS, John, Kingscourt, parish of Enniskeen, and barony of Clonkee.
No. 5 TIMMINS, Mary, Tullyvin, parish of Kildrumsherdan, and barony of Tullygarvey.

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.