ANGLO-CELT MARCH 23, 1854 COUNTY DONEGAL ASSIZES CROWN COURT--LIFFORD, SATURDAY (Before the Chief Baron) MURDER TWENTY YEARS AGO. The Queen v. Daniel SWEENY The prisoner was indicted with the murder of Owen DOGHERTY, at a place called Dangloe, more than 20 years ago. Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., and Mr. JOHNSTON, prosecuted, and Mr. NORMAN and Mr. James HAMILTON defended the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses, that on Easter Sunday morning, 1833, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the wife of the prisoner, in consequence of the latter having driven the sheep of the deceased off her husband's land with dogs. They were scuffling with each other, and in "holts" according to the language of some of the witnesses, when the prisoner, who observed them from his own house, snatched up the tongs, rushed to the spot, and struck deceased over the head with them; before this several members of each family came up and took part in the affray, from the blows received in which the deceased died the following day. The prisoner then left the country, but returned almost to the immediate neighbourhood several years ago. Mr. HAMILTON, in the absence of Mr. NORMAN, addressed the jury for the defence, who, after some deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. Sentence deferred. The Queen v. J. MOOHUN and J. M'KELVIS The prisoners were indicted for corruptly taking money under the pretence of helping the prosecutor to the recovery of stolen goods. Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., and Mr. Robert JOHNSTON prosecuted. Mr. NORMAN and Mr. DOWSE defended the prisoners. The facts of the case were as follows:--A person named David STEWART owed 3l. 5s to the prisoner MOOHUN, which he showed a reluctance to pay. A cow was accordingly carried away from him, and he was informed by MOOHUN that if he placed the 3l. 5s. in M'KELVIE's hands for MOOHUN, his cow would be restored. M'KELVIE agreed to hold the money for this purpose, and STEWART handed it over to him. This short and ready mode of enforcing a demand, rivaling in simplicity even the machinery of the Common Law Procedure Act, is popularly known in Donegal as the "execution of a Glenswilly decree." The jury found the prisoners guilty of the fact, and the Chief Baron refused to reserve a question for the Court of Criminal Appeal as to whether those facts came within the act under which the indictment was framed, observing that this was the second or third conviction for a similar offence, which seemed to be recognised custom in the county. Sentence deferred. (Before Mr. Justice TORRENS) The Queen v. James CANNON The prisoner was found guilty of an aggravated assault with several other persons on a party of coast guards, more than five years ago, near Bunbeg, in this county. He had gone to America and returned, and on his return voluntarily surrendered to stand trial. Two of the coast guard party swore positively to his identity. The prisoner was defended by Mr. HAMILTON. Sentence, twelve months' imprisonment. The Queen v. James DEVITT and C. GALLAGHER The prisoners were indicted for waylaying and beating Patrick QUIN, near Glenties, in this county. Mr. SMYLY, Q.C., and Mr. Robert JOHNSTON, prosecuted, and Mr. James HAMILTON defended the prisoner. It appeared by the evidence of the prosecutor that he overtook two men on his way home from the fair of Glenties, on the 13th November last, about three o'clock in the day. That one of the men, GALLAGHER, entered into conversation with him, and immediately after DEVITT struck him, with a loaded whip, and knocked him off his horse; he did not know either of them before; was sure as to DEVITT; not so sure as to GALLAGHER; he was severely beaten when down, and saved by a person named Patrick LOGAN, who interposed and protected him. Patrick LOGAN was also produced by the Crown, and deposed that DEVITT, whom he knew, was not one of the persons who beat QUIN. The jury, however, found DEVITT guilty, and acquitted GALLAGHER. RECORD COURT (Before Judge TORRENS) MAJOR v. BARTON This was an action of replevin. Plea, eviction of part of the premises. The premises, consisting of the demesne lands of a Kilmacredden, &c., were held by the plaintiff under a fee-farm grant of 1801. The defendant purchased the grantor's interest in 1813, and had taken possession of the above, between the demesne and the sea, the seaweed of which he gave to his tenants, also some other premises called the Port, which had many years ago been delivered up to the defendant by a servant of the plaintiff's family. The jury found that both the shore and the Port were comprised in the grant of 1801, and that they had been taken possession of by the defendant, thereby supporting the plea. There was, therefore, a suspension of the rent. Verdict for the Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff, Messrs. C. BROOKE, Q.C., NORMAN and Dominick M'CAUSLAND. For defendant, Messrs. MAJOR, Q.C., HUNTER and Robert JOHNSTONE. Agents for plaintiff, Messrs. TISDALL and JOHNS. For defendant, Mr. LANGFORD. HARVEY v.M'KINNEY This was an action of trespass for assault. Plea, not guilty. The circum- stances were as follow:--Plaintiff and defendant were travelling together on a public car; the defendant got off to walk up a hill, when the plaintiff left his own seat beside the driver and got on the defendant's; the defendant being about to resume his seat found it occupied by plaintiff and requested him to move; this the plaintiff refused, when, after some altercation, the defendant pulled the plaintiff off the car, and he fell over the fence on the roadside, thereby breaking his arm, and otherwise hurting himself. Plaintiff was a carpenter by trade, and was prevented from working for several months. The driver of the car swore that the plaintiff was drunk, but this was denied by a passenger. The damages were laid at £200. The jury found for the plaintiff £20. Counsel for plaintiff, Messrs. MAJOR, Q.C., BROOKE, Q.C., and M'CAUSLAND; agent, Mr. Lane. For the defendant--Messrs. NORMAN and J. HAMILTON; agent, Mr. Thomas CHAMBERS. CROWN COURT Cormack GALLAHER, Neal GALLAHER, and John GALLAHER, were indicted under the Whiteboy Act, for unlawfully compelling one John O'DONNELL to leave his farm in the month of January last. MR. SMYTH, Q.C., and Mr. Robert JOHNSTONE prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. DOWSE defended the prisoners. John O'DONNELL examined by Mr. SMYTH, Q.C.--He and his son were working in the farm he had purchased from James SWEENEY, when Cormack GALLAHER came up and caught his spade, and told him he must leave that and give up working on that farm; the other prisoners came up and said the same thing; he (witness) left the land and did not go back since. Cross-examined by Mr. DOWSE--Had given nine pounds for the land to James SWEENEY; did hear it rumoured that SWEENEY had taken the land of Cormack GALLAHER to keep as a pledge till the arrears of rent were paid; did believe that this rumour was true; was to give SWEENEY 35l. for the land; only paid nine; I will not swear that GALLAHER was not looking for the balance of this sum; never paid that balance to any one; John had a stick; Neal took it from him, and said there must be nothing done only in peace. After the examination of another witness the crown closed, and Mr. DOWSE submitted to the court that the indictment was not sustained, and that there was no case for the jury. His Lordship said that it was a mere difference as to civil rights, and though the best plan would be to direct the jury to acquit the prisoners. His lordship also observed that the magistrates should have admitted the prisoners to bail, and not have confined them in gaol on such a charge. The prisoners were acquitted. Patrick CURRAN was indicted for an assault, inflicting actual bodily harm on Peter FRIEL, and also on Peter FRIEL, junior, his son. Counsel for the crown prosecuted; Mr. DOWSE defended the prisoner. It appeared that there was a dispute as to the right of cutting turf on some bog; and the witnesses for the prosecution said that the prisoner, without any provocation, attacked the two FRIELs, and cut the father on the head and the son on the hand. There was contradictory evidence adduced for the defence; and after Mr. DOWSE had addressed the jury, and the Judge had charged. The jury found the prisoner guilty of assaulting the father, and acquitted him on the second indictment for the assault on the son. Sentence deferred. Daniel M'MENAMIN was indicted for an assault on the police while in the execution of their duty, and also for a common assault; and the same prisoner and James GORDON, Hugh MAGINTY, and Samuel FERGUSON, for a riot and a common assault. The Crown prosecuted; and Mr. DOWSE appeared (illegible).. Counsel at considerable length commented forcibly and minutely on the evidence for the Crown, and stated the substance of that he meant to adduce. The evidence for the prisoners differed in many parts from that of the police. After ten witnesses for the defence, The Chief Baron charged the jury, and said that he regretted to find that violence, which was altogether unnecessary, had been used by the police, for which they might be amenable before a jury. He had almost always found the conduct of the police most excellent, and he was sorry to find it the contrary on the present occasion. However, this was not justification for M'MENAMIN if he interfered with them in their duty at the commencement of this business; but on this there was contrary evidence. The counsel for the prisoners had correctly stated the law and it was for the jury to consider the evidence on both sides. The jury having retired, the court was adjourned at ten o'clock at night; and at half-past ten, the Chief Baron having been sent for, the jury found Daniel M'MENAMIN guilty of an assault, and acquitted the other prisoners of the riot and assault, and M'MENAMIN of the charge of riot. _______________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project