CAVAN OBSERVER JANUARY 5, 1861 CAVAN QUARTER SESSIONS TUESDAY His Worship entered Court this morning about ten o�clock, and the undefended civil bills were proceeded with. Several magistrates occupied seats on the bench with his worship. At the termination of the undefended civil bills, the Court proceeded to hear the EJECTMENTS Several undefended cases were heard and one or two were postponed. The following case created considerable sensation in court:-- THE REV. FRANCIS SAUNDERSON V. PATRICK LEE AND MARY LEE The ejectment stated "that whereas Patrick LEE, one of the defendants, lately held all that and those that part of the lands of Killygorm, and the house and buildings thereon, as now in the defendants� possession, with the appurtenances, situated in the parish of Kildallon, and in the barony of Tullyhunco, and in the division of Cavan, as tenant to the plaintiff, at the yearly rent of �24 7s. 6d, which tenancy determined on the 1st day of November 1860, last past, by means of a notice to quit having been duly served upon said defendant, Patrick LEE, and further stated that possession was duly demanded, and refused. The present case was, therefore, brought to obtain possession of the land. Messrs. James and John ARMSTRONG appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. KNIPE for the defence. Service of the notice to quit, ejectment, and demand for possession having been proved, Mr. KNIPE said that in point of law, he was afraid his defence was not sufficient, but he was sure that if Mr. SAUNDERSON obtained a decree he would pause before he executed it. LEE had been a good and improving tenant, and had laid out considerable sums of money upon his farm. It appeared that some time after the election in 1855, when MR. HUGHES stood for this county, LEE�s rent was raised, and like a good tenant, he consented to pay an increased rent. MR.SAUNDERSON shortly afterwards called upon LEE, and told him that he would never serve him with a notice to quit so long as he lived. On the faith of this promise LEE laid out a considerable sum of money in improvements. He actually made the improvements Mr. SAUNDERSON himself pointed out. He built a wall and a range of houses, made sewers, and other improvements�being as certain of his farm, on the strength of Mr. SAUNDERSON�s word, as if he had the lease in his pocket. Yet notwithstanding all this, he was served with a notice to quit, and it was now sought to turn him out. LEE had always paid the rent to the hour, and was willing to pay it up to May next, if required. Mr. SAUNDERSON�s promise was not sufficiently plain to be binding in point of law; but LEE was ready to depose to the promise. Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON was in court, but he (Mr. K.) supposed the circumstances had escaped his memory, but, if brought to his recollection, he was sure he would not press the case. Mr. KNIPE then examined Patrick LEE, the defendant, who deposed that he has resided for about thirty years on the property now held by Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON; MR. SAUNDERSON had the property valued in June, 1854; after the election of 1855 witness�s rent was raised to 24� 7s. 6d, which he has since paid; a short time afterwards Mr. SAUNDERSON came to him, and asked him was he satisfied to pay the increased rent; he said that he could not grumble at the rent, as the times were good; Mr. SAUNDERSON said"well, that�s an honest answer; I like to give a man his due;" Mr. SAUNDERSON also said that some of his agents had taken the liberty of reducing the rents in consequence of getting bribes; and he added that he "would never prove a bigot on account of the election;" and he then said, "I will never turn you out as long as I live, or as long as you pay the valuation;" Mr. SAUNDERSON came to witness last Holantide, and point out improvements he should make in his farm yard and walls; all of which witness has since made; on that occasion Mr. SAUNDERSON said to witness, slapping him on the back, "you are an improving tenant, and a model on my property;" witness has built an office, and laid out large sums in improving his farm. Chairman�If we can be sure of this, MR. SAUNDERSON will not surely persevere in this action. I can�t believe any man would do so after such a promise. Mr. James ARMSTRONG�Well, your Worship, the Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON is in court, and we will hear what he says. The Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON then stood up, and stated that he never had any such conversation with plaintiff as he had stated. HE had never made any promise not to put him out, or to keep him on the property as long as he lived. He had never spoken about those in his employment taking bribes, and never heard that any of them had done so. He was sure that no respectable person in his employment would do so. It was extremely painful to him to have to stand up in a crowded court, and make such statements; but he felt that he had been badly treated by the people of his district. When he purchased Mr. M�CARTHY�s property in 1854, he found that the greater portion of the tenants were Roman Catholic. He then appointed a Roman Catholic bailiff, and was most anxious to give his Roman Catholic tenants every comfort in his power. His efforts had not been appreciated. Some time since a farm adjoining LEE�s became vacant and his bailiff came to him and said, "Sir, I�m an old man, and if you don�t keep that farm in your own hands, there will be bad work in the country." I told him that was my business. Well, a few nights afterwards an office attached to the house� it was formerly a barrack�was burned down. The windows of the house were broken; and a pump-� very handsome and ingeniously-constructed one�was all disfigured and destroyed. LEE was in charge of that house. I asked him myself to take charge of it; and he consented. I told him he could keep his furniture in it, and sleep in it; and I understand he did so. I was naturally irritated at the outrage, and I used the just authority of a landlord by serving him with a notice to quit. Mr. ARMSTRONG�Then you never promised not to serve LEE with a notice to quit? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�I solemnly swear I never made such a promise. And furthermore, I wish to observe, your Worship. My bailiff, FLOOD, came to me on one occasion and he said, "Sir, you�re accused of intending not to give leases to any of your Roman Catholic tenants." Now, I had but two opportunities of giving leases, and on both occasions I gave them to Roman Catholics. I told FLOOD then that if he were an honest man, he should have pointed out to any one who made the assertion the evident falsehood of it. I feel, your Worship, that a current is springing up against me in the district, and I feel that I have not deserved it. Chairman�When did you raise the rents, MR. SAUNDERSON? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�In 1855. Mr. KNIPE�Did you tell LEE that as long as you lived or he paid the valuation, you would not serve him was a notice to quit? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�I never did. Mr. KNIPE�I believe LEE has been a very good tenant and made several improvements in his holding? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�I believe he made some improvements Mr. KNIPE�Didn�t he make the improvements you pointed out? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�I don�t recollect pointing out any particular improvements to him. I�m an active man, your Worship, and as Rector of the parish, I consider it my duty to do all I can for those in it. I often call upon the tenants of other landlords, and if I see any improvements which I think they should make�in their farm-yards or otherwise�I point them out, this way I may have made suggestions to LEE. Mr. ARMSTRONG�Was LEE in charge of the house that was burned? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON--He had the key. Mr. KNIPE�Didn�t he build a range of offices and out house? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�I believe he built an outhouse or shed, but I supplied the timber. Mr. KNIPE�Didn�t he build a wall? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�I don�t know. Mr. KNIPE�And, Mr. SAUNDERSON, don�t you recollect tapping him on the back, and telling him he was a model to your tenants? LEE�And shaking hands with me, your reverence. Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�I again swear solemnly that I have no recollection of ever having used such expressions. Your Worship, in that parish I have to discharge the duties of a clergyman and a landlord. That man (LEE) turned out his poor old mother to die in a ditch. We had to build a shed for her; and if she is living now, she is depending upon the bounty of some neighbour. I pitied the poor old woman. I don�t want to disturb her in possession; but I felt it my duty to impress upon that man the enormity of which he had been guilty, but reminded him of the beautiful commandment�"Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God has given thee." For I dreaded that he would bring down evil con- sequences upon himself by his conduct. How could I call such a man a "model"? Chairman�Perfectly right, sir. Mr. ARMSTRONG�And I supposed, sir, you don�t want to disturb his mother? Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�No, I do not. The landlords of Cavan�and I�m not speaking of myself alone�are always good to the widows, and I am proud of that trait in their character. Mr. ARMSTRONG�You hear that, your Worship. He does not with to disturb the mother. Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�And more, your Worship�Before this crowded meeting, I take the opportunity of stating that I am always anxious to do what is fair by my tenants. They asked me for permission to cut turf. I gave it, and LAWLOR, one of my tenants, no sooner got possession that I was thrown out. I said to him, "Now LAWLOR, you�re a fool to yourself, you�re acting unwisely; you may succeed for a while, but you cannot beat the law. Only surrender, and I merely wish to establish my right.." "No, sir," he said, "I�ll never give up to you." He put me to expense and trouble, but I put him out at last, and when he was out, I gave him 20l to enable him to go to America, although he had fought me to the last. Mr. KNIPE asked if LEE had not surrendered willingly so as to create a new tenancy, and always paid the raised rent. Rev. Mr. SAUNDERSON�Yes, all is paid. He made no objection to pay the rent, for he had a good bargain of it. Chairman�Oh, you have no case, Mr. KNIPE. Both sides have been fully heard, and every one in court can form their own opinion. Decree for possession given. Some other ejectment cases were disposed of, and the Court proceeded to hear the adjourned cases. JOHN BEATTY V. THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY This was an action for alleged breach of contract on the part of defendants, and the following gentlemen were sworn as a jury: Mr. Thomas HARTLY, Foreman; Messrs. John NAY,; John PRATT; James SMITH; John DOBSON; Thomas TEEVAN; Hugh BRADY; John MOORE; Henry NESBITT; Joseph TEVOR; Patrick FLOOD; and James SIMONS Previous to the hearing of the case, Mr. M�GAURAN on the part of the defendants, said he had a point to urge which might obviate the necessity of sending the case to the Jury. It was this�By the 8th Victoria, chap. 20, section 9, it was provided that where any railway company did not execute or were not executing accommodation of other works, according to their agreement; or did not keep or maintain such works in proper order, the party aggrieved should bring his complaint before two justices of the peace, and they might make an order compelling the company to fulfill their agreement; or make it competent for the aggrieved party to have the works properly executed or maintained. Mr. James ARMSTRONG, on the part of plaintiff, contended that it was open to him to select any tribunal , even one of the upper courts. After much discussion, The Chairman said he would hear the case, and reserve his decision relative to the point raised by Mr. M�GAURAN. The case was then gone into. The facts are briefly these:-- Plaintiff resides in the vicinity of this town, and at the time of construction of the Cavan branch of the Midland Great Western Railway, aportion of his Land was required and taken for the purposes of the railway. The Company entered into an agreement with him that they were "to Construct a bridge under the railway with ten feet of a headway", and he was to "accept such bridge in lieu of all accommodation works on his land." His complaint was that the company did not give him a gridge of that height, and that in consequence he has suffered considerable inconvenience and loss. By the evidence of Mr. BRADY, engineer, Main street, Cavan, who produced in Court a contoured map of the bridge and plaintiff;s land, the bridge is nine feet two inches from the roadway under it to the guard or top of the arch, but it is only seven feet two inches from the general surface of the land. A mass of cor- respondece relative to complaints made by plaintiff to the company, regarding this breach of agreement was read, and plaintiff and other witnesses deposed to loss mentioned by him in consequence of the bridge not having been constructed according to agreement. NO witnesses were examined for the defence, but Mr. M�GAURAN cross examined those produced by plaintiff and addressed the jury on the part of the defendants. The case having closed. The Chairman charged the jury, recapitulated the evidence, and Told them that according to the evidence of Mr. BRADY, the engineer, defendants had not, in accordance with their agreement built a bridge ten feet high from the general surface of the land. The question for them were�did the defendants break their Contract, and what damages or compensation should they give the plaintiff. The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff For �40 damages and costs. The Foreman, previous to delivering the verdict, said he had been Authorized by his brother jurors, to ask for their expenses. Chairman�A very proper application, gentlemen�just what I should expect from a jury of your intelligence (laughter). The Foreman, seeing that the expenses were not forthcoming, Recommended the learned gentlemen "not to be niggardly;" And after some higgling, the jury received a guinea. Chairman�You have assessed the damages very properly, Gentlemen; I would do the same myself if I were in the box. A Juror�We are only sorry that it�s not more, your Worship. Chairman�Well, I shall give a decree for �40, subject to my decision as to whether the action was properly brought. Attorney for plaintiff�Mr. James ARMSTRONG. For the Defendants�Mr. M�GAURAN. RATHBOURNE V. ELLIS This was a process for �8, loss and damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of defendant having sold him a cow, which he engaged to be all right and sound, but which was unsound at the time of sale, and afterwards, died.. A jury of three was sworn to try the case. The defendant is Mr. Arthur ELLIS, the extensive merchant of this town; and it appeared that on Friday, the 22nd of June last, he sold some cows to plaintiff at the fair of Killeshandra. The cows were driven to plaintiff�s farm by a man he engaged for that purpose. Plaintiff did not see the cows until the following Monday, but his herd, Thomas AFRICAN, complained to him on the previous day that one of the cows was sick of the disease called "red-water". Plaintiff wrote to Mr. Ellis on Tuesday, the 26th of June, telling him that the cow was ill. The cow died within the week. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff, Thomas AFRICAN, gave a most unique description of the disease under which the cow laboured, and also stated that he skinned the animal after its decease, and found that "her lungs wor perboiled; there was a curboil crust on her lungs, and lumps of fat stickin� to her ribs." For the defence it was contended that the cow was perfectly sound at the time of sale; that the disease called "red-water" comes on suddenly� in many cases in a few hours; and is often caused by a change of pasture, or driving the animal in warm weather. Witnesses having been examined for the defence, His Worship left the case to the jury, who found for the defendant, And the case was dismissed without prejudice. Attorney for plaintiff�Mr. E. M�GAURAN. For defendant�Mr. James ARMSTRONG and Mr. KNIPE. The Court then adjourned till ten o�clock next morning. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project