Newry Commercial Telegraph
February 15, 1828
Newry, County Down
In Derrykeighan Church, on the 4th inst., by the Rev. George Bucheridge, Domestic Chaplain to Lord Ferard, JOHN, son of James Owens, of Holestone, Esq , to JANE, second daughter of James Stewart Moore, of Ballydivity, sho(?).
On the 11th ult., by the Rev. James Carlile, SAMUEL Donn to MARGARET COCHRANE, both dwelling in the townland of Dysart, and parish of Newry.
On the morning of the 8th inst. after a severe and long protracted illness, which he bore with all the fortitude and resignation that a sincere believer’s faith in Christ could inspire, Mr. WILLIAM BOYD, of Ballynamagnair(?), aged 75 years. It may in justice be said that truth, honesty and sincerity were the leading features of his character, and in the capacity of husband, parent, friend, and neighbour, few equalled, none surpassed him ; a strong evidence of which was in the large and respectable concourse that followed his remains to their place of interment.
THAT TENEMENT in ARMAGH, situated at the head of THOMAS-STREET and SCOTCH-STREET. Application to made to WILLIAM BARNES, on the Premises.
ARMAGH, 23d Jan. 1828.
PROPOSALS will be received for making the REPAIRS and ALTERATIONS of the TONTINE BUILDINGS, in the City of ARMAGH, agreeable to Plans and Specifications in the hands of HENRY L. PRENTICE, Esq.
The Proposals must be sealed, and forwarded to Mr. PRENTICE, on or before the 28th instant.
ARMAGH, Feb. 11, 1828.
THOSE WAREHOUSES on the MERCHANTS’-QUAY, adjoining the CUSTOM-HOUSE, at present occupied by Messrs. S. and E. CORRY and LITTLE, and by Mr. NICHOLSON. Also to be LET, that HOUSE and GARDEN, in DRUMCASHALONE, formerly occupied by the late CHAS. M’CLEAN. Application to be made to Mr. CARLILE, ASHGROVE.
February 14(?), 1828.
AN ADVERTISEMENT having appeared in THE NEWRY TELEGRAPH of the 12th instant, from Mr. FRANCIS KEANE, WATCH-MAKER, Hill-street, that he will LET, from the First of March, 1828, the HOUSE at present occupied by him.—I think it is necessary to state, that Mr. KEANE is Tenant at Will to me, for said House and Tenement, and that, as such, his Tenant Right will expire on the First day of February next, 1829.
Newry, 14th Feb. 1828.
=======================Grady v. Richards.
A Special Jury has been struck in this case, and the trial is expected to take place on the 16th.
COURT of KING’S BENCH—DUBLIN, FEB. 12.
The King at the prosecution of Archdeacon Trench, against Eneas M’Donnell.—The King at the prosecution of Walter M’Donough, against Eneas M’Donnell. Both for Libel.
The defendant was this day brought up for judgment, before the Chief Justice and Justices Jebb and Vandeleur.
Mr. O’Connell as, Counesl [sic] for the defendant, said he trusted, if any thing was urged on the part of the prosecution, in aggravation of punishment, he would be allowed the privilege of reply.
The Court was understood to have assented to this.
Mr. Justice Jebb then addressed Mr. M’Donnell ; he said the facts connected with the prosecution, were so often and so fully before the public, but would not on this occasion recapitulate them, but he should notice some circumstances which bore particularly on the judgment the Court was about to pronounce. One of the prosecutors in this case was the Very Rev. Archdeacon Trench, a dignitary of the Church, the other a gentleman holding a respectable station in society, and both magistrates ; if the libels as printed and published by Mr. M’Donnell were true the one would be deservedly degraded from the situation he held in the Church, and both ought to be erased from the roll of the magistracy of the country ; there was one thing connected with this business, that very much aggravated the crime committed against society by the utterance of these libels, and that was, that the files of the Court were dishonored by a great number of affidavits, in which the actions of Archdeacon Trench were raked into with the most inveterate diligence, when that Reverend person was yet a young man, belonging to a different profession from the Church, and assertions made of him, whether true or false, was not now to be inquired into, but which had the tendency to cast on him the most unmeasured obloquy. It was hardly possible for Mr. M’Donnell, himself a member of the legal profession, to mistake the effects of these affidavits ; it was impossible, considering the high legal requirements that were brought to his assistance, and which must have advised him of the consequences of his proceedings, that he could have committed such an aggravation of his crime with the view to create a favourable impression of his case ; what then were the objects he had in view, in putting on the files of this Court such affidavits, most of them sworn by persons not immediately concerned in the issue of the trial ? the [sic] object must have been such as should seriously affect the judgment of the Court against him. It was with unaffected concern that he (the Learned Judge) was obliged to be the organ through which punishment was to be awarded ; a thing at all times painful, but doubly so, when the infliction must fall on a member of a profession to which they were attached by so many ties. The Learned Justice here passed an eloquent eulogium on the Profession of the Bar, and said it was melancholy to be obliged to throw a shade over the picture, to sentence a member of that profession to punishment, whose talents and acquirements should have influenced him to a different course from that which he had followed in the instances which called for the interposition of the Court. The sentence of the Court was, that he, Eneas M’Donnell, be confined one year in his Majesty’s gaol of Kilmainham, for the libel on Archdeacon Trench, and at the expiration of that period, that he be confined in the same gaol for a further period of six months, for the libel on Mr. Walter M’Donough ; and then should enter into his own recognizances in the sum of £500 to be of good behaviour, &c.
When sentence was pronounced, Mr. M’Donnell solicited leave to say one word, not upon the punishment awarded him, but as an interrogatory had been put, viz. :--What was his motive for filing the affidavits alluded to ; to his he begged leave to reply, that the Court had put upon him the necessity of proving the truth of his allegations concerning Archdeacon Trench’s moral character --he therefore had sought to do this and no more.
No observation was returned from the Bench, and Mr. M’Donnell withdrew, in custody of the Sheriff of the County. The Court was excessively crowded throughout.
The King at the prosecution of Mary Holmes, v. the Rev. Joseph Murphy.
The securities required by the Court, namely, two sureties in 530l. each, and Mr. Murphy’s personal recognizances in the sum of 2,000l., having been entered into on Wednesday last, the Rev. Gentleman was enlarged.
THE STORES on the CUSTOM-HOUSE QUAY, at present occupied by GLENNY & MELLING.—Apply to
GLENNY & MELLING.
Newry, 7th Feb. 1828.
SMYTH & CO.
BEG to announce the arrival, from LONDON,-- Zephyr, to BELFAST, of their New Assortment of Garden Seeds, which they will engage new and genuine in their kinds, and moderate in their prices ; and take this opportunity of returning thanks to their Friends and the Public, for their kind support for 25 years.
They daily expect the arrival of their CLOVERS.
January 25, 1828.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DUBLIN, FEB. 8.
M’Garrahan v. Maguire.
Mr. Jackson, for the plaintiff, after replying to the arguments and affidavits advanced on the other side, proceeded to explain the additional evidence which his client could bring to a new trial—namely, Dr. Hollywell, who attended the daughter in her confinement ; Mrs. Johnson, of Manchester, who supplied her with a coffin for her child ; and several respectable persons to testify her good character, and to contradict the calumnies brought against her in the evidence of Kelly and M’Gourly. --They could produce Captain Armstrong, whose name had been mentioned upon the former trial, and from whose letters it appeared that he was willing to give Anne M’Garrahan, the principal witness for the plaintiff, a high character for morality and propriety of conduct. Considerable stress had been laid upon the paragraph in their affidavit with respect to Mr. Allan Rutherford, in which it was stated that Mr. Maguire and Miss M’Garrahan were seen in a room together. The affidavit stated that this took place on Friday the 19th October, 1825 ; and a point was made that the 19th of that month was upon a Wednesday. The fact was that a mistake was made in the copying, and it should have been the fair day instead of the Friday ; and on referring to the almanack, it appeared that the fair day of Drumkeerin [Co Leitrim] was on the day stated in the affidavit. Mr. Jackson also remarked upon the fact of Mr. Maguire not having denied in his affidavit his marriage with Anne M’Garrahan, and also his not having denied having sent any letters by M’Inweeny. The Learned Gentleman concluded his address a few minutes before four o’clock.
The Chief Baron, in returning the attested copy of the defendant’s affidavit to his agent, observed, that a very comical mistake had been made in the copying. As he had custody of this document since the last day’s argument, he wished to save himself from the charge of making the alteration.
Mr. Fawcet said, that the copy had been got out of the office.
The Chief Baron—Yes, but there is a word in the margin which has a very odd effect, and I’ll read it for you. It says, “ That this deponent positively states that this deponent BELIEVES he had no criminal intercourse,” &c.—(Laughter.) The Chief Baron then returned the copy, and mentioned that the case should stand over for judgment.
The hall was crowded to excess during the day, but through the exertions of the Sub-Sheriff, and the assistance of the police, the Court was kept in a state of comparative quietude.
Shortly after the sitting of the Court their Lordships proceeded to pronounce judgment in this case.
Baron Pennefather first delivered his opinion. This case had excited considerable public interest ; it should be decided by the Court, however, as if no such interest was felt ; as if, in fact, it were an ordinary case of a parent seeking for damages for the seduction of his child. He considered that question had been put upon the trial, which ought not to have been permitted. The verdict had been obtained by conduct unjustifiable on the part of the defendant himself, in keeping away a material witness for the plaintiff’s case.—It had appeared, since the trial, that Catherine M’Inweeney was brought to town by defendant, subpoenaed by him, and lodged in a house with his other witnesses. The defendant had not denied these meetings which were sworn to have taken place between himself and Anne and Jane M’Garrahan. Catherine M’Inweeney was also sworn to have been present. If that was true it was most important for the plaintiff ; if untrue it was material for the defendant—and therefore M’Inweeney ought to have been produced. With respect to the letters which the defendant admits to have written, nobody can read them without at once seeing that they are most material. One of them, that to Anne, proves a direct intimacy with the plaintiff’s daughter, and it contains an acknowledgement, on the part of the defendant, that an intimacy of a very close kind indeed had taken place between him and the girl. He considered those other letters material in the highest degree ; and the witness who could give most information relating to them, has been kept back by the contrivance of the defendant. He thought the defendant had been guilty also of a suppression of the truth with respect to these documents. His Lordship conceived that he might rest the case here, and give his judgment in favour of setting aside the verdict. But he should advert to the affidavit of the defendant, which he took to be a most important feature of the proceeding. He then proceeded—It is said that the defendant, in four different places, denies the charge made by the plaintiff. If he did deny it once fully, it appears strange to me that he should so often recur to it. The first denial relied on is, that he is innocent of the charge stated in the plaintiff’s declaration, namely, seducing his daughter to injure plaintiff’s property. With that swearing the defendant does not appear satisfied, and he goes on to swear that he never had criminal intercourse with the girl. Criminal intercourse is a matter combining something of fact, but much more of the opinion of the person stating the circumstance. What one person considers criminal another may not. It must be recollected that the defendant is a Priest in Holy Orders—and we must also recollect that but for a particular statute, marriage celebrated by a Priest between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic would be legal, even though the Priest himself should be one of the parties over whom the ceremony was performed. It is charged that such a ceremony did take place, and that it was performed by Mr. Maguire himself. It was so stated by Anne Magarrahan on the trial, and alluded to by Jane, and acceded to by the defendant. When Jane says I come from your victim, Mr. Maguire is sworn to have replied, not my victim but my wife. These are sworn to have been the expressions used by the defendant, and in his affidavit is there one passage in which he says that he did not perform the ceremony ? He does not deny that she is his wife to Jane, and if he did perform the ceremony, as it is sworn he did, between himself and Anne, and she has sworn that no intercourse took place between them until after the ceremony, then, I say, it is highly probable that he might have considered that intercourse not of a criminal nature ; and therefore when I find that this fact which is so prominent in the case has not been denied by the defendant, I cannot, I say, satisfy my own mind that he has in any of the four placed denied sexual intercourse. With respect to the letter produced by the defendant to Anne Magarrahan, and which she swore was dictated by him, is that fact, and it is a most material one—is it denied by the defendant ? No such thing. I am, therefore, I think, borne out by the facts when I state my conviction that it was written by the defendant’s desire, to answer a particular purpose. It is not denied to be the work of his hands, or to have emanated from his lips, and can justice be said to be done when a verdict is procured by means so abominable, as the verdict in this case was evidently the result of. On the whole I consider that justice was not done, that the defendant by his misconduct has prevented witnesses from attending, and therefore my judgment is, that the verdict be set aside with costs.
Baron M’Clelland followed, and expressed his entire concurrence with the view of the subject taken by Baron Pennefather.
Baron Smith delivered his opinion next in order ; and having entered into a review of the evidence adduced on the trial, and of the arguments offered in support of the motion, declared he decided conviction of the propriety of allowing the verdict to stand. He saw no ground whatever to warrant the Court in disturbing it. That verdict had his fullest approval, because it was in accordance with the evidence ; and if he had been placed in the jury-box, his sense of justice would oblige him to come to the same decision.
The Chief Baron expressed his approval of what had fallen from Barons Pennefather and M’Clelland. His Lordship remarked, that with respect to the charge of the Judge, it would be impossible to suppose that Baron Smith could have laid down the law of the land improperly—but there are so many ways of laying down the law, and he does them all so well, that I think I may as well refer to this particular instance to show the way in which he did it on that occasion. He first tells the Jury it was for them to say whether or not they attached any credibility to the testimony of the witness. Now could any man in the world pronounce a better charge than that? Baron Smith does not stop there ; but having told the Jury what they ought to do, he goes on and tells them if he were in the box he would not believe one word she swore. You see he first got an advantage over the Jury by leaving them to themselves, and then he makes himself as it were a thirteenth Juror, and being in the box with them, he says, “never mind what I told you a while ago, but now that I am here snugly with you I will tell you what I would do—that is, not believe a single word she said.”—(A laugh.)
[Baron Smith here rose evidently under strong feelings, and was about to leave the Bench, but again sat down.]
The Chief Baron—My Brother Smith in his speech this day attempted to explain the hypothesis --but I do not think that the nature of the evidence warranted him in putting it to the Jury as he has admitted he did. I wish to speak as respectfully as I can of Mr. Maguire, but I think he would best have consulted his own character had he spurned from his society a wretch like Kelly, who being the teacher of a youth—and a pretty moral kind of teacher he is—should have the unblushing affrontery to swear what he did swear on the trial. The defendant having got possession of M’Inweeny, is also, I must own, a very strong ground with me for setting the verdict aside ; she was a most material witness for him if the other witnesses were swearing falsely, not only as far as regarded the delivery of the letters, but with respect to the meetings at night, which were sworn to have taken place, and at which she was present. Two different servants were also sworn to have seen the girl with the defendant at night, but neither one or other of them have been brought to disprove the fact, and what is still stranger, Mr. Maguire has not ventured to deny that those meetings did take place. On the whole, I think the verdict ought to be set aside, but as the Court is not unanimous, it must be set aside without costs.
Mr. Baron Smith denied that any part of his conduct was open to imputation. It appeared to him that he had taken up grounds which had not been taken up by his brother Judges, but he thought that he had a right to do this. With respect to what had been said respecting him by the Chief Baron, it was one way of imputing a fault, not by asserting himself at the individual, but by making others sneer. He did not think the Baron meant this, perhaps, but the audience were evidence of its effect, and he felt it so. His Lordship commented on the observation of the Chief Baron, as to his making a thirteenth Juror, and defended himself from any insinuation of the sort. He was not thin-skinned, yet he confessed he could not help feeling rather hurt at the unkind observations that had been made ; perhaps they were not so intended—certainly they were not deserved. He discharged his duty as well as he could, and he did not chuse [sic] to be deterred from delivering his opinion boldly and freely.
Their Lordships then retired.
It is understood that the Rev. Defendant means to defend himself at the next trial.—D. E. Post.
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.