ANGLO-CELT JANUARY 5, 1854 TUESDAY Charles KENNY, Thomas GILOOLY, James BROWN, Joseph TREVOR, John DOBSON, Samuel RAMSAY, William PRATT, John M'GINNESS, Thomas KELLET, John BRADY, Samuel PRATT and John M'CORMACK were sworn as a petty jury. Mary HARTIN was charged with stealing an article of wearing apparel at Kilnaleck, on the 29th of October last from Elizabeth CAHILL. Guilty--four months at hard labour. Prisoner--Thank your Worship. Elizabeth TWEEDY and Mary JONES for stealing a shawl at Drum on 15th November last. Acquitted. Edward, Terence, Michael and Patrick REILLY for an assault on Thomas KING, at Cormeen, so as to endanger his life, and in another count for a riot and common assault on 11th October. Thomas FLEMING examined by MR. B. ARMSTRONG--Recollects 11th October, had a farm then, which he held for 27 years, on the lands of Shanoro, has a lease of the farm, no right of pass through it, the prisoners came on his land that day; they are brothers, whose farm adjoins witnesses (sic). Heard in the morning of prisoners breaking down his mearling, went and remonstrated with them, and proceeded to break down the kish they made. Edward REILLY then kicked witness and knocked out a tooth. His sons, Thomas and John, went to save witness, when Michael and Terence commenced to choke him, and Patrick gave him a box in the face; they drew the hay back, and the following lay, though they could have drawn it a nearer way through their own large farm. Cross-examined by Mr. James ARMSTRONG--Some REILLYs had a pass through the meadow, prisoners passed through it for two previous years, when witness was in Scotland. They are in possession three years. Neither MALDEN, the previous possessor, nor Philip REILLY before him, had a quiet pass by that way. The Barrister ordered them to be acquitted, as it was a case of trespass, to be tried by a civil action. James KELAHER for intimidating a juror for a verdict he had given. John JOHNSTON proved the threat. His Worship ordered him to plead guilty, and then decreed that he should find bail himself in ten pounds, and two sureties of five pounds each, to keep the peace for seven years, and on a breach of it to be imprisoned for a month. Michael RIELLY(sic) for stealing bacon at Butler's Bridge, on 9th October last. Guilty--one month hard labour. This terminated the Crown business. WEDNESDAY JOhn KING v. MIchael KING. An action for 9l., the value of a mare lent to defendant, which he surfeited by over-riding, so that she died. The plaintiff proved the loan, and the subsequent death of the mare. Cross-examined by Mr. Cochrane--Gave no notice of the illness of the mare until after she died. Pat MARTIN proved to seeing MIchael KING galloping along the road at a hard rate on the mare. MR. ________,farrier, proved that the mare died of lumps in the throat, which might have been brought on by a surfeit, caused by harding riding. Michael KING--Your Worship, I'll tell you all. Court--Indeed you will not. Did you walk her? Witness--I did, going Court--Coming home? Witness--I came faster then. I met Pat MARTIN, and I had a bit of a canter with him. To MR. KNIPE--I was hearty in Swanlinbar; my stirrup-leather was broke, and the mare began to caper, and the police took me into custody; but the mare went gently home with a neighbour's boy. MR. KNIPE--Were you not carried off the mare? Witness--Wasn't I? Why would I not, when there were three of them at me? Court--Go home, sir. Let there be a decree taken for the full amount. MALONE and wife v. Philip REILLY, Rose REILLY, and others. Actions for certain sums of money, arrears of rent due by the defendants. It appeared that in 1851, the parties had been seized on by order of t he Court of Chancery, for sums due by them as tenants on the Lanauze property. Having no means of removing the distress, they applied to the plaintiffs, (Mrs. MALONE being the widow of the late Mr. LANAUZE) and they gave them up their property, getting a consent in writing that a decree for the amount should issue without stay of execution, when it should please Mr. and Mrs. MALONE to look for it. For these sums the several actions were now brought. MR. Edward M'GAURAN having proved by witnesses the occupation by the defendants, and also the consents given by the respectively, and the circumstances in which they were given. MR. KNIPE, MR. James ARMSTRONG, and Mr. TULLY, for the various defendants, argued in defence that the plaintiffs had promised, when getting the consents, that they would not act on them for twenty years. Mr. Charles MALONE was called up to prove this. Sworn--Is one of the plaintiffs; did not remove the distress to "create a tenancy to himself, but to save defendants;" did not promise not to act upon the consents for twenty years; had given them three years to pay him, and in the mean time gave to each an abatement of five shillings in the pound; is not now in possession of the property, but it is as much his as ever it was, there being a life interest and a jointure payable off it, which is more than the value of the entire estate. Court--This is the most extraordinary case I ever met. Here is a benefactor in the moment of great trouble; he gives them the use of their property, that they were unable to give themselves, asks not to be paid for three years, and makes an abatement on the rents for the future, of twenty-five per cent, and now they come forward and say we will not pay you what, but for you, our goods would have paid for three years ago, because you gave us not twenty years to pay it. Why not ask a hundred years. The defendants have no case; let them go home. Decrees were granted, with certain deductions in one case or two, which Mr. MALONE, as soon as he was assured of them showed himself most ready to allow. [There is a landlord-right as well as tenant-right; and in its cause we must say that, as the facts came out in evidence, and beyound this we know nothing in the matter, Mr. MALONE's case was a clear example of it. Give us to see every landlord doing as he did--removing a distress, and asking at the end of three years what was distrained for, giving in the interval a very large abatement that there might be gathered the means to pay him, and we will say, agitation be at rest; tenant right is secured by the best of all enactments--the promptings of honesty and generosity.-- Ed. A.C.] MOORE v. BROWN. An action of 40l. for damage sustained by a seizure effected in Cavan under a civil bill decree. MR. SWANZY stated the case. The seizure was a most adroit and nefarious trick. The defendant in the decree was the brother of the present defendant, and married to the plaintiff's mother, by whom had had not alone support provided for him but the comfort of an amiable wife. This did not satisfy him, but by a trick he induced the present defendant to get out a friendly decree against him in Ballyconnell, not in Cavan, lest the mother of the children would know if it and provide for the children's property against it; Mrs. BROWN had nothing whatever of her own; all belonged to her children by the will of her late husband. Mrs. BROWN examined by Mr. SWANZY--All the property seized under the decree belonged to her children and was bought with their money, that came into them from certain houses in Cavan. Witness forfeited all her property by marrying again, which she foolishly did. But has a good pair of hands. Court--Perhaps they are too good. Cross examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--All the furniture that she had at her husband's death was said to Mr. MONTGOMERY. The furniture seized on was bought with Samuel MOORE's money. Samuel was her son. Samuel MOORE corrobated this; he always allowed...(remainder of article cut off) End of Cavan Quarter Session _____________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project