ANGLO-CELT MARCH 2, 1854 CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS.--Monday, Feb. 27. Magistrates present--Theophilus THOMPSON and Robert ERSKINE, Esqrs. SPRIGGING Mary FLYNN a. Robert STINSON This was a charge for money due on account of work done on several collars for the defendant. She had worked a first, and was to get a certain price for the number of others, if they were equally well done, which plaintiff alleged she was allowed. The defendant swore that he gave full value for all the work done; plaintiff had asked an arbitration and got it; he had offered her all they allowed. Mr. Edward Lennox SLOANE, one of the arbitrators, proved to the award, and plaintiff admitted having taken the money awarded. The case was, therefore, dismissed. Mary REILLY a. Robert WILSON This was also a charge for money due for sprigging. MR. John ARMSTRONG stated the case on behalf of the defendant. According to the statute, a case of dispute was to be referred to not less than four or more than six arbitrators, or to a magistrate; the former he would consider the preferable course, and magistrates--though quite competent to decide a point of law--were not quite so good judges of sprigging. It was ordered that the matter be referred to two arbitrators, one appointed by each party. Susan DALY a. Edward Lennox SLOANE This was a similar case, and Mr. ARMSTRONG moved that there be a similar reference, but at Mr. SLOANE's suggestion to four not to two as in the preceding case, for the defendant could not, he said deviate from the strict letter of the Act. Ordered accordingly. NOT ACCEPTING A BILLET Patrick SWIFT a. George ROURKE The plaintiff, who is a soldier of 18th Royal Irish, was sent on a billet to the defendant's house, where he was assaulted rather than received. The sergeant produced the billet given to the plaintiff. SWIFT sworn, proved to the assault. Cross-examined by Mr. J. ARMSTRONG--Was quite sober; drank only a glass of whiskey that day; does not know what o'clock it was when he went to ROURKE's; went with his billet as soon as he got it to ROURKE's; was called a "blackguard and no soldier," and knocked out on the road. Sergeant O'TOOLE proved to giving the billet to SWIFT. There was no delay in getting the billet after SWIFT returned. Witness went himself after SWIFT's return to ROURKE's and rapped, when Mr. ROURKE shouted out, "You blackguard go off or I'll cut off your head;" there was a woman in the house with defendant who said, "Don't cut off his head but shoot the blackguard." To MR. ARMSTRONG--SWIFT was not drunk, but quite capable of doing his business. MR. ARMSTRONG--Was he under the influence of liquor? Witness--He was sober. MR. ARMSTRONG pressed the question, but Mr. T. THOMPSON ruled that the answer was most satisfactory. MR. ARMSTRONG dissented. The man might be under the influence of drink so as to be very troublesome, and yet be denominated a sober man. He then stated the case. ROURKE was putting on his shutters when plaintiff pressed and knocked the shutters out of his hand, never stating a word about a billet. The novelty of a soldier coming at eleven o'clock, and he drunk, was quite sufficient to justify ROURKE's not giving him admittance. As soon as ROURKE found that a policeman was outside he said, "Oh! he must get in of course." He (Mr. ARMSTRONG) would ask was there ever an instance of a soldier coming upon a billet at so late an hour, and if there was not how could ROURKE be other than chary of receiving a man, even though he affected to have a billet. He then alleged Mr. ROURKE's high character in Cavan. No such charge was ever made against him before. The magistrates knew him well, and he would leave him in their hands. All the police in the court bore witness to the orderly character at all times of Mr. ROURKE's house. MR. THOMPSON acquiesced in this, but stated at the same time that the case was a most aggravated case; he should have been admitted by generous man, even if he had no right to enter; but armed with full authority to obtain it, he was refused shelter, and assaulted; he would, therefore, fine the defendant in 40s. for the refusal to admit the soldier, and 10s. for assaulting him. MORE ABOUT SPRIGGING John CARNDUFF a. Ellen MAGUIRE; Edward L. SLOANE a. same; Robert STINSON a. same The defendant was charged with detaining goods given her to sprig. She had fourteen pieces from Mr. CARNDUFF, got at several times, under a variety of names, a number of others from Mr. SLOANE, and also from Mr. STINSON. The plaintiffs believed that she had absconded, having disposed of the goods. A warrant was ordered to be issued for the apprehension of the girl. STREET NUISANCE Terence BRADY, publican, summoned Patrick M'GOWAN, for having a cart in such a way in the street, opposite to plaintiff's door, as to prevent access to it. Defendant also threatened plaintiff, by shaking his fist in his (plaintiff's) face, and saying he would kick him. ______________________________________________________________ MARRIED Feb. 21, at Kill Chapel, by the Rev. P. SMITH, P.P., Mr. Bernard M'CABE, of Cootehill, to Miss Catherine O'REILLY, daughter of the late MR. James O"REILLY, of Campstown (one of the lineal descendants of the Princes of East Brefni), and sister of the Rev. Charles O'REILLY, C.C., Modubawn, Cootehill, in this county. ______________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project

I have found several explanations of the term 'sprigging' as it was used in stories in the Anglo/Celt. There was even a Sprigging School in West Cork, much to my suprise. Just a small cottage, but it must have been an important source of income at one time. Sprigging or Springging Lace So called because it was like a spring or spray. It is fine embroidery on white linen. Some distinctive figures were shamrocks or daisies with stems and buttonholes. Worked in satin thread on linen, the pieces were usually finished with a scalloped edge in Co. Down and a crochet edge in the Clones area [Co. Monaghan/Fermanagh]. Patricia