ANGLO-CELT JANUARY 5, 1854 CAVAN QUARTER SESSIONS (continued) MIchael DOLAN was indicted for a riot, but on application, the Court sentenced him to three months imprisonment at hard labour, the sentence to be put in execution, when it would be thought proper to call upon him; that is, when the prisoner shall have been guilty of a similar offence again. Patrick TRACY was indicted for picking a woman's pocket in Ballyconnell. He was found guilty, and sentenced to three months imprisonment without whipping, as there was no evidence of any previous offence by him. The prisoner thanked his Worship. Charles M'CAFFREY was indicted for a similar offence. MIchael KING got the prisoner's hand in his pocket. Mr. ARMSTRONG--Did you see him? How could I find his hand in my pocket unless I saw him. Was it dark? It was betwixt and between, what more do you want to know about it? MR. ARMSTRONG--I''ll send you over to Mr. KNIPE, you need not be angry with me. Cross-examined by Mr. KNIPE--Drank two half ones this morning. On the day in question took plenty, won't say how much before the prisoner took his money. Did not search the shop for the money. Blood-and- thunder-and'ouns must I give an account of all I drank, I was not drunk then, are you drunk now? Well, then, neither am I. To prisoner--Didn't take anything off the ground, nor search it for money when I missed it; others did it for me. The witness was certainly the most lubricous specimen of irascibility we ever saw. John Park, Sub-Constable--Saw KING on the night in question, he was not drunk, but he was through other, in explanation, he was "mul- wathered," he was a companion of TRACY, and should share his fate. Patrick BRADY was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, committed at last Cavan Sessions, in a civil bill action pending between him and George L'ESTRANGE, Esq. Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG stated the case--The prisoner stands indicted for a grievous offence. Last October sessions he had a process against Mr. L'ESTRANGE for loss and damage sustained by a cow bought at Mr. L'ESTRANGE's auction, which came not up to the engagement. A jury was empanelled to decide the issue. It appeared that the cow was sold by BRADY to Bernard WALLS in Cavan. The prisoner was produced to prove his case, and stated his purchase of the cow first, and his selling it to Bernard WALLS for seven pounds. More than once he was asked how much he got for the cow, and still he persisted in saying that he got only seven pounds. This was that the jury might consider him entitled to more damages, than if he got a larger price. But it turned out that the cow was sold for thirteen pounds. WALL proved this; he had given seven pounds and promised six more. WALLS will tell you that before the trial of the civil bill, he offered the six pounds to BRADY more than once, which he refused as often, BRADY then shifted his ground and deliberately swore that he sold the cow for thirteen pounds. This is the case that will be proved before you, and, if I am rightly instructed, you will have it substantiated that he was guilty of deliberate, corrupt, and wilful perjury. MR. Patrick CAFFREY examined by Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG--Is Deputy Clerk of the Peace, finds in his book the entry of "BRADY v. L'ESTRANGE" for breach of warranty of a cow. A jury was sworn. Messrs. Edward PLUNKET, Edward KENNEDY, and Henry NESBIT were to try it. Patrick BRADY was sworn on that trial, the oath being adminis- tered in the ordinary way, produces a memorandum, which he took down at the time by direction of the Court; it appeared by that that BRADY swore he sold the cow for seven pounds, and afterwards swore he sold it for thirteen and that he did not swear before that he sold it for seven. To MR. COCHRANE--Will not swear positively that no other witness was examined at that trial but those he has in his record, but to the best of his recollection there were not others. Edward PLUNKETT examined by Mr. B. ARMSTRONG--Was one of the jurors in the civil bill case; recollects BRADY being asked the price of the cow, and he answered "seven pounds" as well as I can recollect. Is not sure whether it was "seven" or "eight" he said. That question was put, that it might be seen how much should be given in damages. To MR. M'GAURAN--Took down a memorandum of what then occurred in writing, and has it not now. MR. M'GAURAN then objected to this evidence, as he had not the paper with him. The Court over-ruled the objection. Mr. M'GAURAN then objected that when, by direction of the Court, a memorandum was made, it was not competent afterwards to give oral testimony on the matter. This, too, was over-ruled by the Court. Examination resumed--After WALLS had given his testimony, BRADY admitted that he sold the cow for thirteen pounds, or thirteen pounds five. Cross-examined by Mr. Edw. M'GAURAN--What (illegible)... George CHADWICK. Sold the cow, gave an engagement according to the herd's book that she was served to calve at a certain time, also that she was a good dairy cow with a defect in one of her teats; recollects SMYTH offering seven pounds for the cow about three weeks after the auction; SMYTH was buying her at the auction; she brought 8l. 20s. there. Cross-examine by B. ARMSTRONG--There was no sale to SMYTH when he offered seven pounds for the cow; did not hear at the sessions BRADY swearing anything about the case. Thomas REILLY--Knows BRADY about seven years employed him in the mean time; had all confidence in him. To MR. B. ARMSTRONG--thinks his general character a good one. Rev. T. MULVANY deposed to the same effect. He knew the prisoner for the last five years; his general character is that of a businesslike honest man. Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq.--Knew the prisoner four or five years; never heard anything against him; had frequent opportunities of seeing him at court of petty sessions, when he came in his capacity of collector of county cess and poor's rate. This closed the case for the defence. His Worship then proceeded to charge the jury, and said--Gentlemen of the jury--Brady is charged with perjury, an offence so admirably described by MR. M'GAURAN. In such a case the jury should have a moral certainty of the guilt of the accused before they would find him guilty. On the other side all are bound to punish such a crime if they see it proved. There is no security to life or property if an oath is not creditable. He who takes away life by false swearing is an assassin; he who takes away property by such a means is a robber. You must be satisfied that the statement charged was false--that it was corruptly false--that it was done with deliberation, for all these constituents are required to the perfection of the charge. Perjury differs in many respects from other crimes. It cannot be proved directly. An assault or a robbery can be proved by positive evidence., but perjury must be deduced from the facts stated. You are to infer whether BRADY does appear to you by fair inference to have the evil intention. Those things laid down, I must tell you that the stating the price the cow was sold for was most material to the trial of the Civil Bill; by it the jury were to measure their damages. A man equivocating is still a perjurer, and therefore the word "got" is the same as the word "said" a thing I would call your attention to, as much stress seem to have been laid upon it. You have, therefore, to consider the evidence of Mr. PLUNKETT. He conveyed to us that he sold the cow for a certain sum. WALLS is met by the prisoner, (and this presses must strongly on him) something is said to him going to give his evidence about seven pounds. Why communicate with a man going to be sworn? You must ask yourselves, was not this an attempt to tamper with WALLS, that his deceit might not be seen through. He has a good character, and besides the defence that he was speaking all the time of an offer by SMYTH of seven pounds. What had that to do with the case? What had an offer to do with the sale. The prisoner is a person of intelligence, and Mr. M'G. argued reasonable upon this matter. This, too, was over-ruled by the Court. Examination resumed--After WALLS had given his testimony, BRADY admitted that he sold the cows for thirteen pounds, or thirteen pounds five. (Repetitive discussion) After much deliberation, a verdict of guilty was pronounced, with a recommendation to mercy. Sentence--Six months' imprisonment at hard labour. Richard GIBSON was indicted for assaulting, on the 16th of December, Head Constable HOPWOOD, and Sub-Constable Michael WELSH, in the execution of their duty, and in another count for a common assault. Hugh BRADY, James BROWN, John MAGINNESS, Thomas M'DOWALL, Martin BEATTY, Mathew BOYLAN, Andrew REILLY, James BRADY, Thomas M'CORMACK, William MAGINNISS and William MAGUIRE were sworn as a petty jury. Wm. ARMSTRONG examined by Mr. HAMILTON--Was in Ar\vagh in MAGUIRE's public house on the 16th December, there was a row there; GIBSON was in the house, he said he would kick any man in Arvagh; witness said he had bad conduct; prisoner ran at him, pulled him by the neck and struck him with a whip. In consequence of the row, the police were sent for, and arrested him. MIchael MURPHY examined by Mr. HAMILTON--Went to MAGUIRE's house, took GIBSON into custody there was no riot at the time; saw prisoner do nothing to any head-constable or other persons; witness was the first that went in. Cross-examined by MR. KNIPE--The magistrates in Arvagh dismissed ARMSTRONG's case when he summoned GIBSON. To a juror--There were four of us bringing GIBSON to the barrack, he complained of bad treatment; witness had him by the neck; saw no assault committed at all, but if any was committed it must have been on the way to the barrack. Court--I think the constable 'had no right' to arrest GIBSON. If he saw a riot, he should have taken the disturbers before a magistrate, but on private information of assault, he could not take any man into custody. There is an excellent book on the subject of their duty, compiled by an eminent lawyer, which the constabulary all ought to have explained to them, and it would teach them what they were to do. He directed the jury to acquit the prisoner, who was acquitted accordingly. Two women, ARMSTRONG and DUFFY, were indicted for stealing goods from Mr. KANE of Ballyconnel, but from the want of evidence they were acquitted. His Worship having admonished them, they were discharged. Pete CASSIDY was indicated for burglary, and having goods in his possession, knowing them to be stolen. He pleaded guilty to the having goods in his possession, and was sentenced to three month's imprisonment with hard labour. Larry M'GIVNEY and two others were indicted for stealing turf from Ballyjamesduff. They were in gaol since September last, for a quantity, value three pence at most. His Worship ordered them to be found guilty, and on the verdict to that effect being returned, they were sentenced to 24 hours' imprisonment, from the first day of the sessions. Francis WARD was indicated for stealing a few articles of wearing apparel from Mary BRESLIN at Arvagh. He was convicted. Mr. GALLOGLY stated that he was convicted ten times, and whipped five times; he is about nine years of age. He was sentenced to a penal servitude of four years. Thomas M'GAGHRAN was indicted for a rape on Anne CONOLLY, an infant, under ten years in Ballyhaise. Verdict--Guilty of the connection, to which the prosecutrix was a consenting party. (to be continued) ____________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project