ANGLO-CELT MARCH 9, 1854 CAVAN SPRING ASSIZES At a quarter to five o'clock, on Friday last, Mr. Justice TORRENS, attended by the High Sheriff, John Hervey ADAMS, Esq., came into court. The commission having been read by the Acting Clerk of the Crown, Mr. O'NEILL, the Grand Jury was called over, and the following gentlemen sworn:-- Robert BURROWES, Esq., Stradone House, foreman Hon. Henry C. BUTLER, Quivey William HUMPHRYS, Esq., Ballyconnell House Lieut.-Colonel Henry CLEMENTS, Ashfield Joseph STOREY, Esq., Bingfield Theophilus L. CLEMENTS, Esq., Rakenny J. HAMILTON, Esq., Castle Hamilton, Killeshandra W. RATHBOURNE, Esq., Scruplestown, C. Dublin Nathaniel MONTGOMERY, Esq., Swanlinbar Robert J. CUMMING, Esq., Crover, Ballyjamesduff John E. VERNON, Esq., Forde Lodge, Cavan Perrott THORNTON, Esq., Ardloher Robert Smyth DICKSON, Esq., Killeshandra James FAY, Esq., Cavan Michael PHILIPS, Esq., Glenview, Belturbet George WARING, Esq., Bailieboro Abraham BRUSH, Esq., Drumbar Cavan JOhn JOHNSTON, Esq., Swanlinbar Charles MORTIMER, Esq., Lakeview, Mullagh Joseph LYNCH, Esq., Roebuck Edward M'INTOSH, Esq., Cootehill Robert ERSKINE, Esq., Cavan His Lordship proceeded to address them. He said -- MR. BURROWES and gentlemen of the grand jury of the County of Cavan--With respect to the cases which appear on the calendar, I have little to say; they are unimportant and few, and, as to them you understanding matters so well yourselves, require no instructions from me to guide. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the cases of those not in custody....One of them is a case of rescue, a second is a case of homicide, and a third is for rape..... RECORD COURT--Saturday At about half past eleven o'clock the Right Hon. the Chief Baron entered the court and took his seat on the Bench, when he proceeded to try. APPEALS SPOTTEN a. RUTLEDGE This was an appeal from a decision of the Assistant Barrister at last October sessions. Mr. JOHNSTON stated the case--It was an action for 10l. for an I O U for loss sustained in consequence of a house purchased by applicant and plaintiff on a certain farm being let go to wreck, and another detained for a year and a half, contrary to agreement. Alexander WALSH examined by Mr. JOHNSTON--Knows Mr. SPOTTEN, is his attorney; recollects agreement between SPOTTEN and Mr. RUTLEDGE about certain lands. On that occasion MR. SPOTTEN made an objection that there were parties residing on the lands, who could not then give up possession; got on that occasion an I O U for 10l., as a warrant that their houses would be delivered up to 6th May following; this affair occurred in April. Cross-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--The I O U was a guarantee for surrender of houses belonging to the cottiers on the farm. To the court--The consideration money was paid in five springers and 19l. of money, making up the entered sum of 47l. the stipulated purchase money. James SPOTTEN, the plaintiff, examined by Mr. JOHNSON--Recollects the two houses on the lands bought by him; got possession of the lands in April but did not get the houses for nearly a year and a half after that, one of them was then down; offered RUTLEDGE, if he put up the house, to give him his I O U; would give 20l. less for the farm without that house than with it. To the court--They were mud-wall houses thatched, with two rooms in each. [Examination and cross-examination of Robert M'AULEY, who was Mr. SPOTTEN's herd at the time and knew the house occupied by SMYTH and KELAHER; also of Mr. Thomas JOHNSTON and Owen SMITH] His Lordship said it was a serious question whether the action was sustainable in point of law. The body of the I O U is absolute, and the condition is merely a memorandum of the witness....The would, therefore, affirm the dismiss with costs. A LAND QUESTION BRADY, Appelant; Henry SMYTH, Respondent This was a case of ejectment for half an acre of ground in Aughnaconny. The Assistant Barrister gave a decree in possession. John M'MANUS examined by Mr. James ARMSTRONG--Knows the lands of Aughaconny; held 10 acres there for 20 years; knows the half acre of meadow now in dispute; it belonged to Henry SMYTH's holding for 34 years; he (witness) had nothing to do with it, though he held the other half; knows a ripsod raised to distinguish the half acre belonging to each; when witness held the ground MAGEE held the other half, and after him, KENNY: the ripsod is there still. Cross-examined by Mr. PEEBLES--George Kemp had several sons; Thomas was one of the; he married a Miss WILTON: the father could give him in the case of the twenty acres, whatever part he liked; KENNY had the half acre when he held it; he sold it to Henry SMYTH. Re-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--SMYTH is in possession for more than 20 years and had the half acre, until about a year ago, during all that time. Henry SMYTH examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--Is the plaintiff; got possession of the lands 30 years ago and more, at that time did not get the half acre; when KENNY was going to America in '34 got the half acre from him; held that until May or June last; made hay upon it, &c.; Edward BRADY forced possession of it from him....The lease made to him is now expired; he claims now under a son of George KEMP; but another son claims that half acre. Edward FEGAN--Is witness to a lease from Edward KEMP to Henry SMYTH, demising all that KENNY held....... Chief Baron--They have proved possession, and you, being wrong-doers, though actually holding, are not to get the benefit of that possession. Thomas KEMP examined by Mr. PEEBLES--Is witness to a deed handed to him; that was Thomas KEMP's deed of marriage settlement; knew Mr. Joseph WILTON, the father of Thomas KEMP's wife;.... Joseph WILTON--His daughter was married to Thomas KEMP; on the occasion of the match-making had a conversation with George KEMP about the half acre in dispute; on the first day of treaty George would not give the half acre, but a few days afterwards he agreed to give it if witness would advance in the fortune he was to give his daughter, which he agreed to..... It was then ordered that a survey of the premises be made, that it might be seen whether the half acre was included in the boundaries marked out in the deed of marriage settlement, their return to be made by the following Monday. His Lordship said that this was as knotty a case as he had known in Cavan, and this was saying a great deal of it. The case was put off to be tried in Dublin. CROWN COURT-- SATURDAY, MARCH 4 (Before Judge TORRENS) HIs Lordship took his seat on the bench... at about eleven o'clock, and proceeded for some time with the fiating of the presentments and took occasion to mention the matter relative to-- THE FEVER HOSPITAL He said, addressing the Grand Jury, with regard to the presentment for the old County Fever Hospital, he would fiat the present presentment, as it was quite right and judicious to have the premises put into a sufficient state of repair previous to their being sold...Mr. Robert BORROWES, the foreman, stated that the Grand Jury had received the assent of Lord Farnham for the disposal of the Fever Hospital, but there appeared to be some difficulty in the matter, in consequence of the lease having been made to trustees. Judge TORRENS--Then let the trustees or the survivors of them be the vendors. His Lordship then proceeded with THE CROWN BUSINESS. Margaret WALL, a young woman aged eighteen years, pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged her with having had in her possession a linen sheet of the value of 1s., which had been stolen from Thomas WEST, of Belturbet, on the 1st February last, and she having been in gaol once before for a similar offence. She was sentenced to be imprisoned for three months at hard labour. Thomas YOUNG pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged him with the commission of a homicide, the killing and slaying of one John DALTON, in the month of February last. His Lordship at first sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment, but subsequently mitigated it to six months, in consequence of having received a favourable report of the case from the counsel for the Crown. The following gentlemen were then sworn on the PETTY JURY. Samuel IRWIN, William MAHOOD, JOhn M'CABE, JOhn WILLLIAMSON, James M'CULLOUGH, Arthur FINLAY, Robert GREER, Charles HEELS, Charles HAUGHTON, William JOHNSTON, Arthur IRWIN, and Henry M'KNIGHT. Patrick NOON, aged 22, Mary NOON, aged 23, and James M'LOUGHLIN, aged 23 years, were then arraigned upon an indictment, which charged them with having committed a burglary and robbery in the house of Mrs. Sarah and Catherine NUGENT, in Swanlinbar, on the night of the 29th January last, and for having had in their possession a large quantity of shawls, scarfs, handkerchiefs, gloves, braids, and other articles stolen therefrom. Mary NOON, not guilty, and Patrick NOON and James M'LOUGHLIN, guilty, to be imprisoned for four years at penal servitude. The trial possessed no public interest. George RICHARDSON, aged eighteen years, of a rather unprepossessing aspect, was arraigned upon an indictment which charged him with having, in the parish of Ballintemple, committed an assault upon Margaret REILLY, on the 31st January last, with intent to violate her person. The facts of this case, as elicited in evidence, are briefly as follows: The prisoner and prosecutrix were living as servants with Mr. James KEITH, who resides near Ballinagh, and on the day laid in the indictment he and his wife left home about ten o'clock in the morning, and did not return until ten o'clock at night, and during their absence the prisoner committed the assault upon prosecutrix with intent, &c., as set forth in the indictment. She resented the indignity offered to her person by striking and inflicting a severe wound upon his head with a pair of tongs, and on the return of her master and mistress informed them of the transaction; they at once sent for the police and had the prisoner arrested. Margaret REILLY went the next day to Mr. DOPPING, the Resident Magistrate, and swore informations against the prisoner for the offence. MR. KEITH, her master, gave her an excellent character. The prisoner was defended by Mr. John ARMSTRONG. The defence set up was that prosecutrix was an immoral character, and had preferred a similar charge against John LEGHORN, a former master and that she had informed Mr. Thomas KEITH and his wife, Mary KEITH. son and daughter in law of said James KEITH, that the prisoner had done nothing to her (Margaret REILLY), but simply to kiss her upon that occasion, which liberty he had taken once before as he was courting her, all which, on being confronted with the parties, she denied, and after a very lucid charge from the learned judge, the jury at once returned a verdict of guilty. His Lordship in passing sentence stated to the prisoner, that during the progress of the trial, he had determined to sentence him to only twelve months imprisonment, but in consequence of the line of defence he was advised to set up, he would sentence him to eighteen months imprisonment at hard labour. ____________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project