THE CAVAN OBSERVER - JANUARY 5, 1861 (SATURDAY) The "Observer" is devoted to the Political, Agricultural, and Commercial advancement of the country, and whilst it advocates with fidelity sound Constitutional principles, it manifests a spirit of Christian tolerance as regards those to whose principles it is politically and religiously opposed. It devotes a considerable portion of its space to Literary and Scientific subjects, at the same time supplying the fullest Local and General Information. LOCAL NEWS CAVAN QUARTER SESSIONS The Quarter Sessions for this division of the county commenced on Monday, before P. M. MURPHY, Esq., Q. C., Chairman of the County. On the Bench with his Worship were the following magistrates: Robt BURROWES, Esq., D. L., Captain CUMMING, Captain CARDEN, David F. JONES, Theophilus THOMPSON, William BABINGTON, Robert ERSKINE, J. STORY, Wm. Murray HICKSON, R.M., Esqrs. &c. THE GRAND JURY Thomas HARTLEY, of Countenan, Foreman; Edward KENNEDY of Cavan; James GILROY, of Turin; Matthew LOUGH, of Cavan; Philip SMITH of Castlecosby; James HARTLEY, of Cavan; John GANNON, of Cavan; Francis Edward HUDLESTON, of Gortinadrass; Henry DOUGLAS, of Cavan, George GRAHAM, of Clonervy; James MORROW, of Crossrule; JOhn PRUNTY, of Ballyhaise; Alexander KETTYLE, of Cavan; John MOORE, of Lisdarran; James HOPKINS, of Cavan; John DOGHERTY, of Derryland; and Robert BUCHANAN, of Corrickeany, Esqrs. The bills having been handed to them, the Grand Jury retired to consider their findings, and the Court proceeded to hear the insolvent cases, after which the following appeal (the only one heard) was proceeded with:-- John BRADY, appellant, Captain CUMMING, J.P., respondent Messrs KNIPE and M'GAURAN appeared for the appellant, and Mr. John ARMSTRONG for the respondent. The facts of this case were as follows:--The appellant kept a public-house in Ballyjamesduff, and on the evening of the 12th of August, the fair day of that town, some parties who were drinking in the house, commenced to quarrel, upon which appellant ejected them from his house. They continued the quarrel in the street, and Mr. WEIR, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who lives opposite appellant's house, on hearing the noise ran out, and rushing to amongst the crowd collected near the appellant's door, caught two men who were fighting. Mr. WEIR was unarmed, and unaccompanied by any of the constabulary. The two rioters struggled violently with him, and some of the crowd also struck him on the head and back. HE did not let go his grip, however, and both him and the two men fell to the ground and struggled there for some short time, when one of the ruffians got Mr. WEIR's hand in his mouth, and bit him--Mr. WEIR was lying on his back at the time. It was about five or six o'cloc! k in the evening, and the occurrence took place on side appellants' door. MR. WEIR alleged that he saw appellant standing within a short distance of him, and the agony he was enduring in consequence of the ruffian having his hand in his mouth, being unbearable, he screamed out "BRADY, BRADY, for God's sake help me!" Instead of doing so, Brady ran into the house, and he was obliged to let one of the rioters go, but succeeded in bringing the other to the police barrack. The two men were afterwards paneled at the Ballyjamesduff PEttey Session, when the order of the magistrate was confirmed--namely six month's imprisonment to one, and three months' imprisonment to the other. When the publicans of the district were applying for renewals of their spirit licenses, or certificates, lately, the magistrates at the Ballyjamesduff Petty Session refused to grant appellant a certificate in consequence of his refusing to ass MR. WEIR, on the 12th of August. The respondent, Captain CU! MMING, was chairman on the occasion, as it was from this decision the present appeal was made. For the appeal it was contended by Mr. KNIPE that the appellant had done his duty in putting the rioters out of his house, and that he was not bound to rush out and assist MR. WEIR, leaving his property to the mercy of other rioters; that Mr. WEIR should have had his constables with him; and he also alleged that appellant did not hear Mr. WEIR call to him for assistance. Mr. ARMSTRONG contended, on the other hand, that publicans were bound, under a penalty of ?10, to assist police constables and other officers of justice. Mr WEIR having been examined by Mr.ARMSTRONG; and cross-examined by Mr. M'GAURAN. The Chairman asked Mr. ARMSTRONG where he found that publicans were obliged to assist the police? Mr. ARMSTRONG said he had been only retained that morning, and could not point out the particular section of the act, but if the case were allowed to stand over until next morning he would be able to do so. Messrs. M'GAURAN and KNIPE objected. The Chairman inquired if there was any other charge against appellant. Mr. WEIR said not; his general character, and that of his house, was good. Some discussing having taken place. The Court ruled that the charge was not sufficient to deprive appellant of his license, as the alleged offence had no connection with the management of his house or his personal character--Mr. WEIR had acted very gallantly, though indiscreetly, and perhaps appellant had behaved unproperly; but that was not the question. The decision of the magistrates should, therefore, be reversed. There were seven applications for spirit licenses--each of which was granted. In the case of Patrick M'BRIDE, Main street, Cavan, Mr. BABINGTON said that himself and the other magistrates at Petty Session in October had refused to grant him a certificate on the ground that himself and his wife were of intemperate habits, but hi had since made inquiry, and found that M'BRIDE and his wife had become temperate. The certificate was already signed by one magistrate, but he (MR. B.) told M'BRIDE that he would not sign it unless in Court, that he might publicly state his reasons for doing so. The Chairman and Mr. BABINGTON had acted very properly. Mr. THOMPSON also stated that M'BRIDE and his wife had given up drinking. Mr. BABINGTON then signed the certificate, and the application was granted. The Grand Jury returned with their findings. Several bills had been ignored. A case of conning(?) was sent for trial to Enniskillen Assizes, and the witnesses rebound to prosecute. In a case of pig stealing, an important witness, John LORD of Dublin did not appear the the case was sent to the assizes. In another case it appeared that the accused had left the country; and Mr. KNIPE appeared on behalf of his sur(illegible)...did so with the (illegible) of the prosecutor, and without their knowledge; but his Worship entered the recognizance subject to the production of the accused at next Quarter Session. The following were the criminal cases heard:-- Michael TEEVAN pleaded guilty to a charge of carrying a gun in a (illegible). Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG, the Crown Solicitor, said he had made inquiry into the case, and found that the prisoner bore an excellent character. He lived near the boundary of the proclaimed district, and had, perhaps, inadvertently, carried the gun into it. He would not, therefore, press for punishment. Mr. THOMPSON, J.P., also gave the prisoner a good character. The chairman pointed out to the the prisoner the advantage of good character, and ordered him to be discharged. Mary CONNOLLY was charged with stealing 4 pieces of woollen plaid, 2 pieces of Gingham, 2 pieces of grey lace, one piece of union calico, 2 pieces of printed (illegible) and a quantity of worsted, the property of Anna Maria MERVYN; 2 boots, the property of Robert H. MERVYN; and 1 box, 1 book, 1 hair brush, and 1 valentine the property of John FEGAN. A second count charged her with having them in her possession, knowing them to be stolen. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty to both counts. Miss Anna Maria MERVYN identified the goods stolen from her. The prisoner had been in her father's employment as a servant and from some suspicions she entertained, she searched the prisoner's box, where she found the goods. The prisoner put several questions to Miss MERVYN, all of which were satisfactorily answered. Mr. Robert Henry MERVYN, brother to the last witness, identified the boots as his property. They were odd ones--"fives" and "sevens"--and the corresponding ones were in his shop. Mr. John FEGAN, printer and stationer, identified the articles stolen from him. Some of the he might have sold previously; others he was sure he did not--The prisoner had been servant to his father, and when altering his establishment some time since, a portion of his stock, had been removed to his father's house--The prisoner had access to the room in which goods of the description stolen were kept. Sub-constable JOYCE proved to arresting the prisoner on the 24th December. The prisoner said she had found the boots in Mr. MERVYN's yard, and thought they were left there by some country people. She persisted that she had purchased the goods claimed by Miss MERVYN, but would not tell where. She said the goods claimed by Mr. FEGAN had been given to her by a servant girl of his fathers', since gone to America. No character was produced of the prisoner. His Worship having charged the jury, they returned a verdict of guilty, without leaving the box. The prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Prisoner--Thank your Worship. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm much obliged to you all (laughter). MIchael FITZPATRICK, Thomas GILLIAN, Thomas REILLY, Terrence REILLY, and Patrick CHARTERS, were charged with having at Ballinagh, on the 21st of December, assaulted Constable William STEELE, Sub-Constables, JOhn SMITH, Robert RANSON, and William RUTHERFORD, in the execution of their duty; with having, at same time and place, with others, riotously assembled and created a riot and affray, and with having, at same time and place, assaulted Sub-Constable William RUTHERFORD, so as to do him grievous bodily harm. There were six counts in the indictment. The prisoners, who are all young men, pleaded not guilty. They were defended by Messrs. M'GAURAN and KNIPE. The Crown Solicitor prosecuted. It appeared from the evidence that on the night of the 21st December there were two parties of young men "sliding" on the street of Ballinagh. One party belonged to the "town" and the other to the "country". The prisoners belong to the latter. About eleven o'clock at night one of the two party, either accidentally, or intentionally, knocked against and upset one of the other party, and some of those present laughed at the latter. Angry words succeeded, and Constable STEELE and his men, fearing that the peace of the town would be disturbed, recommended the country party to go home. They were unwilling to do so, but the police succeeded in getting them near the end of the two, opposite the Court-house. FITZPATRICK< who was the most violent, brandished a stick about his head, and said he would have revenge on the town party--that he 'would clear the town,', 'box any peeler in the town', &c. Constable Steele took the stick from him, and he insisted on having it back, but! the constable offered to leave it in any house he wished, and that he could have it next day. FITZPATRICK was not satisfied with this and said that if he "couldn't get a stick, he could get a stone." He then went to a dead wall at the side of the road, took a stone and flung it at the Constable, but it struck Sub-constable RUTHERFORD on the head--the blood gushing out on STEELE, who was near him. RUTHERFORD has been suffering since from the effects of the blow. GALLIGAN was also extremely violent. Finally, the attack by the whole party was made on the police, and regular volleys of stones were thrown at them.-- The police were unarmed; STEELE directed them to retreat to the barrack. They did so and returned with fixed bayonets. Nothwithstanding this, they rioters continued, and attacked them even when the bayonets of the police were touching their breasts. At length the police succeeded in capturing the prisoners, but the rest of the rioters escaped. After the cap! ture of the prisoners no stones were thrown. FITZPATRICK appeared to have been the leader of the rioters in connection with GALLIGAN, but the other prisoners, although taking part in the affray, were not so violent. Although the prisoners appeared to have taken some drink, there were none of them drunk at the time. The witnesses were cross-examined for the defence, but nothing material was elicited. Dr. REILLY was examined as to the nature of the wound sustained by RUTHERFORD. He said the wound had penetrated to the skull--the membranes being cut through; and he first feared that inflammation of the brain would sent in, and refused to give a certificate that RUTHERFORD was out of danger. He was questioned at some length by the Chairman as to the meaning of the terms "grievous bodily injury;" and admitted that if inflammation of the brain had not se in, RUTHERFORD would be scarcely said to have sustained such injury. Mr. E. M'GAURAN ably addressed the jury for the defence, and examined Laurence REILLY, father of the prisoners of that name, and also witnesses as to character. The Crown Solicitor re-examined Constable STEELE, who proved that CHARTERS had been convicted at one time of a waylay and assault on a man name Bartly SHERIDAN. The Chairman in an able and lengthened charge stipulated the evidence, pointing out the law bearing on the case, and told the jury that on Dr. REILLY's evidence, they should leave out the count for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Sub-constable RUTHERFORD. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against all the prisoners, but expressed it as their opinion that Thomas REILLY, Terence REILLY, and Patrick CHARTERS, were not so much in fault as FITZPATRICK and GALLIGAN. The Chairman considered the verdict a very proper (illegible) and sentenced FITZPATRICK to be imprisoned for twelve months, with hard labour; GALLIGAN for nine months; and the others for four months each. Both in his charge to the jury and when passing sentence on the prisoners, his Worship paid a high compliment to the police for the excellent manner in which acted before and after the affray. There were a couple of cases of rescue, in which the parties consented to settle their differences without the intervention of the Court, and as they were of a trifling nature, the Crown Solicitor declined to prosecute. IN another of the same nature, the accused plead guilty, and was discharged. Eleanor M'GOVERN was indicted for having, on the 27th December, at Ballyconnell, stolen ten 1? notes, the monies of Hugh REYNOLDS, she being his hired servant. The prisoner was undefended and pleaded not guilty. Rose Anna REYNOLDS examined by Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG--Is wife to Hugh REYNOLDS; lives in Ballyconnell; knows the prisoner; she was my servant; on the 27th of December I sent her to Mr. KANE's to get (illegible) large note for ten single ones; she came back in a few moments, and said Mr. KANE was at dinner; I told her to go elsewhere, and she went out again; I did not see her after that until about eleven or twelve o'clock that night, when she was in the custody of the police; my husband had given information to the police. Constable VIRTUE examined--Received information that the prisoner had absconded from Ballyconnell on the 27th December; found her that night in the house of a man named Peter SMITH, at a place called Cullion, almost four miles from Ballyconnell; it was about ten o'clock when I found her; when I went into SMITH's house the prisoner reached out her hand with the notes and said "here", as if she knew what I wanted; Hugh REYNOLDS was with me at the time; I then took her into custody. The prisoner asked no questions of either of the witnesses. The Chairman asked the Constable if he knew what character the prisoner bore? Constable VIRTUE said he he knew the prisoner about three years; and she bore an excellent character, and said her family also were of good character. Mrs. REYNOLDS, in reply to the Court, said the prisoner had been in her employment since about the 12th of November. The Chairman briefly recapitulated the evidence, and said that it was evident the prisoner had been honest up to the time she came back with the notes, and said that Mr. KANE was at dinner. Being sent a second time with the notes, temptation, unfortunately, entered her heart, and she who a moment before been honest , lost the spirit of honesty. The question for the jury to decide was--did the prisoner take the notes with the guilty intention of stealing them. The jury after a short deliberation, found the prisoner not guilty--they did not think she took the notes with the intention of stealing them. The Chairman said he should take their verdict, and then, in a feeling manner, pointed out to the prisoner the position in which she would have been placed but for the merciful view taken of her case by the jury, and advised her not to again allow temptation to overcome her, but to maintain the same character for honesty which she had borne previous to the 27th of December. The prisoner was then discharged, and the criminal business having terminated, his Worship informed the jury that they were discharged from further attendance, except such of them as were summoned for civil cases. He had great pleasure in wishing them a "happy new year." The jury thanked his Worship and the Court adjourned to the following morning. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project