ANGLO-CELT OCTOBER 27, 1848 CAVAN QUARTER SESSIONS APPEAL CASE UNDER 5 AND 6 VICTORIA--DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION WORKS IN IRELAND--EEL-WEIR AT BAKER'S BRIDGE John BAKER, appellant; the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, respondents. In our last publication, we submitted the particulars of the appearance of this case in court at the sitting of his worship on Wednesday, the 18th instant--that on affidavit on the part of the Board of Works, an application was made to have the case postponed to the next sessions of Cavan--that after considerable discussion, the court refused the application. The jury was then sworn, and the court directed that six of the number should on Friday, the 20th, proceed to Baker's-bridge to view the drainage, where they would be met by parties on behalf of both the appellant and respondents. Finally, it was arranged that the hearing of the case should be proceeded with on the Monday following. Monday, Oct. 23 At twelve o'clock, according to arrangement on the previous Wednesday, the above case was called on, and the jury called to the box--viz., William CARMICHAEL, James BERRY, Thomas BLIGH, Charles J. MURPHY, Wm. FAIRIS, Thomas HARTLEY, Wm.Moore BLACK, John WARNER, Alexander BERR, and Henry HUMPHRYS, Esqrs. Mr. SWANZY (with whom were Mr. ERSKINE and Mr. James ARMSTRONG, on the part of Mr. BAKER, as appellant, asked Mr. COLLIS, who appeared as counsel on behalf of the commissioners, whether he were disposed to waive all formalities, and go into the merits of the case at once? Mr. COLLIS said that from the peculiar position in which he was placed, he could not take it upon himself to waive formalities; but as Mr. SWANZY said he was read to go through his case, he had better proceed in the r egular way. Mr. SWANZY replied that a circumstance had just occurred which might be of difficulty if compelled to confine himself to formalities. An important witness which they had brought from Dublin, by whom the required notices on the Commissioners had been served, had just left the court, although he had been served with a summons to attend, which he would prove by a witness. Daniel LEDDY being called and sworn, produced copy of summons which he served on Mr. ROWAN on Wednesday last to attend the court this day. Witness further proved that Mr. ROWAN was in court that day (Monday), and had just left it. Mr. James ARMSTRONG said that ROWAN was here on the part of the board, and the gentlemen from the board ought not to be against his coming into court. MR. COLLIS begged to inform Mr. ARMSTRONG he was quite mistaken. Mr. ROWAN had nothing whatever to do with the board. MR. ARMSTRONG, in explanation, remarked that as soon as Mr. COLLIS stood up to object to the waiving of formalities, the gentleman in question left the court. By order of the court, a constable was sent to look for him. In the meantime, MR. SWANZY proceeded to address the court and jury. He said that in this present case of Mr. BAKER, appellant, against the Board of Works, a precept had been sent down to summon a jury to try the question between Mr. BAKER and the board, in order to enquire into and assess damages incurred by reason of the removal of the eel-weir at Baker's-bridge. With respect to Mr. BAKER, the property of Ashgrove has been in the possession of his family for a long series of years. The weir had been situated in the Ashgrove side of the River formerly called the River Erne, and the family had long derived considerable profits from this weir. This is the principal of serveral other rivers which flow into and are tributary to it, receiving therefore the most of the waters in the locality. The lakes and rivers at Farnham, Killeshandra, River Erne, and Belturet flow on thier way, and pass through where this weir had been erected; some ideaof its value might therefore be formed. John BAKER, in the year 1780, made this weir the subject of a family settlement, settled it on his son, and even went so far as to build the bridge at his own expense for the purpose of establishing this weir. Up to the year 1846, Mr. BAKER fished the weir and sold the produce in different markets, amounting to £50 to £70 yearly, not including the value of the fish consumed in Mr. BAKER's house and given away. By the 5th and 6th of her Majesty, in August 1842, the Commissioners of Public Works were appointed Commissioners of Drainage, for the purpose of draining rivers and lakes, and preventing the mischiefs of flooding; but also for the purpose of increasing the property of the persons adjoining those rivers and lakes. In 1846 the commissioners having been applied to by the landed proprietors interested in the drainage of the lands of that portion of the country, directed an enquiry as prescribed by the act, as to how far it would be advantageous to have the obstructions removed; and in con- sequence the board agreed to take the weir for half the season to free the passage of the water for the works, and for this the board allowed Mr. BAKER £40. They afterwards proceeded and removed the weir and made several works of importance for preventing the lands in the neighbourhood from being flooded. MR. BAKER's weir had been removed and done away with, and his right destroyed; and for that injury the Commissioners held a meeting for the purpose of enquiring into the extent of damages, and they awarded him the sum of 295l., a sum that would not compensate him for the fish consumed in his own house, if he did not even sell a single fish of those caught. From that award Mr. BAKER hdd appealed, and now appeared in court willing to go into the merits. Mr. SWANZY further urged that the precept on which these proceedings were being had was wrong, designating Mr. BAKER as the Rev. John BAKER. The court overruled the objection. He would allow Mr. BAKER to stand in holy orders as far as that went. [ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS FOLLOWED] Mr. SWANZY said that neither himself nor Mr. ERSKINE knew anything of the case until a few days ago. The Court was not laying blame to either of the gentlemen. Mr. ERSKINE's examination resumed--I know that Mr. BAKER succeeded John Noble BAKER; that he is in possession for the last 7 or 8 years;and that John Noble BAKER had the estate before him and that John Noble BAKER was the son of John BAKER from whom he derived. Mr. BAKER was carried out of court in a fit of appoplexy. The Jury returned a verdict of 340l, damages for the appellant. ___________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project