ANGLO-CELT MAY 25, 1854 CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--Monday, May 22. Magistrate present--Theophilus THOMPSON, Esq., Robert ERSKINE, Esq., John DOPPING, Esq. WELL ENOUGH PAID Daniel BRENNAN a. Patrick BRADY A complaint for five shillings wages due to plaintiff, who is a cart maker in Ballynagh. BRENNAN proved that an engagement had been made with him by BRADY to make two bodies of a cart for which the materials were prepared. When he had gone to defendants house with his tools he found that the timber was yet to be felled, growing, as it still was in all its pride in the garden. It was felled and sawed and made up, and some additional work done, during a fortnight at least, and plaintiff only got one shilling of money and tobacco. Defendant stated that complainant declared himself well satisfied with what he got, but he was three weeks and not a fortnight merely working with him. The Bench ruled that he ought not to have been satisfied, and granted a decree for three shillings. COULDN'T COUNT BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT A J.P. Rose SMYTH a. Thomas SMYTH. A charge for wages due to the amount of 1l. 9s. 10d. Plaintiff examined--Got all her money, 2l. 12s., for a years wages, except 1l. 9s. 10d., but could not say positively how much she got. The reason that she sues for 1l. 9s. 10d. is because defendant himself, having made up her account, said there was so much due to her. Court--How comes it that you don't know how much you got actually? Witness--How could I, your Lordship, and never was on the bench before? Defendant said he tendered her the balance of all that was due to her, and, she having made some conflicting statements, he was ordered to lodge that balance in court, and, having done so, the complaint was dismissed. A PROMISED SPREE Hugh M'GLONE a. Ann GAFFNEY and _______DEMPSEY Complainant alleged that he was robbed of eleven shillings and four- pence by Ann (a bad character), with DEMPSEY's assistance, last Tuesday night about eleven o'clock, as he was leaving Cavan. Ann followed him of her own accord and was groping his pockets; he took out his money and had it in his hand when it fell, and when he stooped to pick it up DEMPSEY ran away with his hat. Complainant followed her for it, and in the mean time Ann ran away with the money. A policeman proved to searching Ann when charged by complainant and finding on her four half crowns and three pence halfpenny, complainant having stated to him that in the money which he lost there were four half crowns. GAFFNEY stated that complainant was an old acquaintance, and known to be a 'good boy' by every one in Cavan. She was in company with him that evening, and he was promising her a spree next day when he got an order cashed in the bank; in the mean time he was knocked down and made the charge against defendant because she would not say who struck him. They were both committed for trial. NO THIEVES BUT TRADERS IN STOCKINGS Mr. STEELE a. three women, a mother and two daughters. Complainant swore a charge of being connected with certain robberies was made to witness against the defendants, and on looking for them he found they had left Cavan; he followed and met them a Butlersbridge, and found with them a large sum of money in the amount of fourteen or fifteen pounds; and some clothes, most of which were women's apparel. Mr. HAMILTON, who appeared for the defendants stated that his clients were going to England when they were arrested, that no person was found to claim any of the money or clothes found with him, that the female apparel belonged to the women themselves and male attire to one who is in gaol. Mr. THOMPSON--Who is the husband? Mr. HAMILTON--He is a person who trades-- Mr. THOMPSON--In pickpocketing, I presume. Mr. HAMILTON--If your worship is inclined to prejudge I cannot help you, I was going to say in stockings. Mr. THOMPSON--I beg your pardon, I though you were going to say what I suggested. Mr. HAMILTON--Your Worship was premature, you see. The magistrates then consulted, and ordered that the parties should be transferred to the gaol for a week until inquiries should be made as to the ownership of the articles found on them. MAKING BALLYHAISES OF THEMSELVES Sub-Constable SHORT a. Thomas TEEVAN, FREEMAN, and another. Defendants were charged with being drunk on the fair night of Ballyhaise. SHORT swore that they were drunk, and that he did not trip or strike any of the defendants. The Sergeant of the Barracks also swore that the defendants were drunk and disorderly. Mr. DOPPING--What is your definition of drunkenness. Witness--I would think that a man drunk, who would be misconducting himself on the road making noise, &c. Mr. DOPPING thought that in the spirit of the art, the man was drunk who was not able to take care of himself. Mr. THOMPSON--I would think the man drunk and more dangerous, who would be shouting and misconducting himself on the road, even though he was able to take care of himself so as to do himself injury. Mr. ERSKINE quite agreed, he heard of a man lately going along the road beating it with a stick, and shouting, yet he was able to walk. That man he believed to be drunk beyond doubt. Mr. TULLY, solicitor for the defendants, urged that all proved against his clients was that they were excited, and there was good reason for this in the fact that SHORT, the policeman, struck TEEVAN for not going faster on his road home, and then tripped him. He then called on a man named M'CALL, who proved the blow by the policeman, and that TEEVAN was not drunk, or if he was, he never would be able to bear up against the blow without falling under it. He, therefore, applied to have the case for assault against the policeman tried. The magistrates did not accede to the application as the summons for the assault was only served this morning. Mr. DOPPING said he thought that the decision should at least be postponed until the case for the assault was to be heard. The rest of the bench agreed in the propriety of this suggestion, and all decision in the case was therefore deferred. A SPRIGGING CASE Felix MOLLOY a. Margaret SCOTT Mr. John ARMSTRONG for the plaintiff, stated that he is agent of a sewed muslin manufactory in Glasgow. Defendant, under a fictitious name, got work from him which she sold to a servant of Mr. BARRON for one shilling. He sought conviction of her under the 2nd section of the act. Mr. MOLLOY proved the circumstances as stated, and that the value of the piece found with Mr. BARRON's servant was at least five or six shillings. It was ordered that she be imprisoned for a month, or pay a fine of 2l. James M'CONNELL a. Same A charge under the 18th section for detaining goods, given her to work too long. It was ordered that she be confined an additional month, or pay a fine of 2l. PAYING FOR HIS WHISTLE The Guardians of Cavan Union a. Michael MAGUIRE Edward FINLAY examined--Proved MAGUIRE's leaving a two-year old child in the board-room a fortnight ago--as we reported it--KIERNAN was the mother. The Clerk read the act, by which it appeared that every mother was bound to maintain her illegitimate child to the age of fifteen years, provided that she was not debarred of any claim allowed her by the last to have it maintained by another. Now it was maintained that MAGUIRE was liable for the support of the child, and, therefore, KIERNAN was exempt, and unobnoxious to any charge for desertion of the child. Ellen KIERNAN examined--Proved that the child deserted was hers, that MAGUIRE was the father, that he was decreed for its maintenance, and ordered to keep the child for the future, and pay 5l. for the past. He came for the child, and, owing to some cause or other afterwards occurring, sent it back to witness, who kept it until it was two years old. Defendant said that KIERNAN had more children in the county, but she swore she had not, then alleged that she had been in Scotland, and her leaving her child to go there cost him 30l. KIERNAN again swore that she never left Ireland. Mr. THOMPSON to MAGUIRE--There are two statements of yours contradicted on oath. It is likely to be a dear child to you; you were decreed for 5l., fined 2l., you are now liable to a fine of another 5l., and in the end must support the child. They then ordered that the child be supported by defendant, and to give him the opportunity of doing the thing efficiently, they postponed the case to this day fortnight, when, if he has not agreed to support the child, the full fine will be imposed. ______________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project