ANGLO-CELT SEPTEMBER 14, 1854 CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--Monday, September 11, 1854 Magistrates present--Theophilus THOMPSON, Robert ERSKINE, and John DOPPING, R.M., Esqrs. WHO CAUSES THE NUISANCE The Guardians of the Cavan Union a. Charles SHERIDAN; Same a. Elizabeth KELLY; Same a. Peter M'GAURAN. A charge of permitting a nuisance about certain premises in Lurganboy. Mr. TULLY, solicitor, stated that the other day there was a meeting of the Commissioner to form a board of health, and until this was done the guardians had the power of having persons punished for nuisances. Mr. THOMPSON said there was a difficulty in the case, as one party was throwing it upon another, until it ultimately rested on the road contractor, Mr. Peter M'GAURAN. The case ultimately turned against Mr. M'GAURAN, as if he had opened the shore. MR. M'GAURAN stated that he had never opened the shore; he had to do with another shore from the Barrack Hill, which Mr. HAGUE thought to connect with the shore which caused the nuisance in question, as if the latter was included in the presentment, but failed to do so. The fact was, that the place where the nuisance is was private property, with which he could not interfere, even though he was willing to do. The complaints in all the cases were dismissed. A SOBER MAN DEAD DRUNK Samuel LAURENCE a. William FITZPATRICK A charge of being drunk in Butlersbridge. Defendant produced testimonials as to steadiness and sobriety from MR. PINCHIN, Sub-Inspector of Constabulary in Belturbet, and Mr. GUMLEY. J.P. He was cautioned, fined one shilling with costs, and discharged. EVERYTHING IN ITS PROPER PLACE The Commissioners of Cavan a. Mathew M'GAGHRAN, Same a. James COWAN. Charges of selling turf out of the place appointed for that purpose by t he Commissioners. John GOLRICK proved the fact of the offering for sale in both cases. Mr. John ARMSTRONG, solicitor, stated for M'GAGHAN, that his father had offered a price for the turf in the morning, and the defendant had only gone down, on after thought, to accept what he was offered, when he was seen by GOLRICK. The complaint was withdrawn in this case, and in the other, the defendant was ordered to pay the cost of the summons, and to be more cautious for the future as to where he exposed his turf for sale. A FAIR EXCHANGE John REILLY a. Wm. STEELE A charge that defendant, a constable, carried away a fender, com- plainant's property, from Ford Lodge auction. The defendant alleged that it was his own fender he took away; it had been knocked down to himself. Mr. John M'CABE, the Petty Sessions Clerk, who made the entries at the auction, produced the book, from which it appeared that fender No. 5 was knocked down to Mr. REILLY; now, Mr. STEEL admitted that it was fender No. 5 that he took away. Mr. DOPPING thought it was Mr. VERNON who ought to be defendant in the case, for not making good to a buyer what had been sold to him on his behalf. MR. M'CABE said, oh, Mr. VERNON's part, that if Mr. REILLY under- took to swear that the fender taken by STEELE was the one he bought, STEEL would give it up, or he himself would make good the difference in value. It was left to Mr. M'CABE to decide the matter between the parties. A TICKET--NOT FOR SOUP Elizabeth CARMICHAEL a. David RIED A charge for 5s. 9d. for sprigging. SLOANE was the predecessor in the agency of REID (sic), and when she brought in her work to him he paid her in a document, and not in money. RIED stated that he had no right to pay the money; it was marked "paid" in the book which SLOANE left after him, and had actually been dis- charged by the firm. The court ruled the firm had a right to pay the girl; if they had paid it before, through an agent little trustworthy, that was their own loss; they should not have placed confidence in him, and if they did, the public should not suffer by it. A decree was granted in the case for 5s. 9d, the amount claimed and 4s. costs, the girl having frequently had to come to Cavan to look for her wages. SHARP PRACTICE Thomas MARTIN a. John PRATT A charge for threatening to cut off complainant's head with a scythe, whereby he was obliged to leave the service of defendant's father. Mr. TULLY stated the case for the complainant--Defendant threatened complainant with a scythe, and when he was threatened with the law, defendant said that's all the good it will do you, you will get no justice against me. Now, he Mr. TULLY quite repudiated such an insinuation, for he did not believe there was a more pure bench on earth. Mr. THOMPSON--We do our best at any rate. The complainant swore all that Mr. TULLY stated, he had no witness to produce except God and defendant's father. Defendant's father proved that when complainant was ordered to do some work, he said he would rather work for the devil than such black- guards. Upon the occasion, when complainant swore he was threatened with the scythe, there was no such threat, but he was not present when, upon the previous day, it was alleged defendant threatened him with a pitchfork. Complainant said he was quite willing to go back to his service, but he was afraid of the defendant and required to have him bound over to keep the peace. Defendant's father acted most boisterously, said that complainant "swore confounded lies," and ought to "have the ears cut off him". The parties agreed to forget and forgive, and left the court, though clearly on any other terms than those of cordiality and sincerity. STEALING HAY Robert MILLAR a. Bernard SHERIDAN A charge of stealing hay, complainants property, from the land of Killawilla. John DENNENY examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--Was on the lands in question of the 24th ult., looking after Mr. MOORE's (of Drumelis) cattle; saw SHERIDAN there before sunrise; saw him lifting hay, putting it in a bundle, and bringing it into his own land; could see who was taking the hay, and afterwards passed him by with the load on his back. Cross-examined by Mr. J. ARMSTRONG--Is from Cavan; is as well conducted as he can; was not shocked at seeing one stealing another decent man's hay; cannot say how long afterwards it was when he told MILLAR; recollects now that it was three days after, saw MILLAR passing by his master's door in the mean time; did not like to go between neighbours until he went to his clergy, and they ordered him to tell of the theft. Mr. ARMSTRONG--Why not tell MILLAR at once? MR. M'GAURAN--Tell him what you were saying about the clergy, it may be of use to Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. ARMSTRONG--No indeed, MR. M'GAURAN, I don't go to your clergy, and you could not induce me. Mr. TULLY--I fear a greater grace would be required for this purpose than any Mr. M'GAURAN could communicate. To Mr. DOPPING--Went to confession in the general way, and scrupled this consciousness of another man's guilt amongst other thing. Mr. THOMPSON--Sure his stealing the hay was no crime of yours. MR. M'GAURAN--Oh! there is a guilt of silence as well as of actual commission; if you knew a man to be cognizant of a murder, you would soon brand him if he concealed it. To Mr. ARMSTRONG--Was as far as from the courthouse to the gaol from defendant when he was lifting the hay; described his coat and trousers and brogues. Robert MILLLAR examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--Recollects being told of the stealing of the hay; is not on speaking terms for the last ten years with SHERIDAN; defendant had no hay cut in his meadow at the time in question. To Mr. ARMSTRONG--It is immaterial to you whether I go to a priest. I was married by Rev. Mr. BRADY. To Mr. DOPPING--There was a dispute about hay between the com- plainant and defendant but the latter took away all the hay he claimed before the taking away of which there is allegation. Mr. THOMPSON said the matter was settled; it was not a case for a jury in the presence of the last remark that there was a dispute about the proprietor of the hay. Mr. M'GAURAN submitted that the magistrates had a right to grant informations irrespective of the credibility of DENNENY that it was for the jury to consider. Mr. THOMPSON--Oh, we have summary jurisdiction in the case, and would never sent it before a jury. Thomas BRADY examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--Is complainant's servant, to his knowledge SHERIDAN carried off the hay he claimed as his own long before the occasion of which the theft was alleged; MILLAR did not complain of this carrying off by SHERIDAN; why this was so he cannot tell. The case was dismissed. INTERNATIONAL LAW Patrick MACKEN v. Philip ALWILL A charge of embezzlement from several parties in America to a large extent. Mr. THOMPSON told his brother magistrates that Patrick MACKEN had, on Saturday last, complained to him that he was defrauded by OLWIN (sic) of 327 dollars. That statement was put in the form of an information, a warrant for further inquire was granted and defendant arrested. For his own part he thought the bench had no jurisdiction in the case. Mr. ARMSTRONG then stated the case. MACKEN resided in Mobile where he had carried on business successfully. Being about to retire he had goods to dispose of. On the 14th May last OLWILL applied to purchase them and a bargain was struck that he should have them for about £60 of our money. Mr. SWANZY--as a preliminary objection urged that if any offence was committed at all it was committed in America. The magistrates here had, therefore, no right to enter into the case, not having a commission from President Pierce, and the alleged offence concerning only his government whether the accused was or was not guilty was quite irrelevant; the issue being whether he could be tried here for an offence which, it was alleged, he had committed in America. Mr. THOMPSON said he quite agreed with Mr. ARMSTRONG unless the case bore another aspect now from what it assumed when last before him; but he thought if the case was substantiated as it was charged they could detain the prisoner until the government or any of their competent parties determined what was to be done with him [Discussion as to whether the case could be tried in Cavan.] Patrick MACKIN (sic) examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG--Resides in Mobile, Alabama, is originally from Granard; resided between New Orleans and Mobile for 19 years; Philip OLWILL came to Mobile five years ago; had a bag and stick gathering rags; made some money in this way; several times bought goods from witness; the last he bought was on the 15th March last, or about that, he bought to the amount of 327 dollars, and had them carried home where he kept a small store; he did not promise to pay immediately; it was usual to give a month's credit, he would have given him 5,000 dollars worth as well; he got the goods from other people on credit at the same time; he got about 2,600 dollars worth in all; he left Mobile on the 18th; witness would suppose for New Orleans, where it is the custom to go for shipping; the boxes and bales being all empty in the accused's store roused witnesses suspicion; he followed him to New Orleans where he discovered that he had sailed in the ship, 'Moses Taylor' for Liverpool, that was on the 24th May; learned in New Orleans that he had disposed of all his goods; returned to Mobile on the 27th and found that his wife was gone, and the store cleared; learned that she had gone to New Orleans; witness returned to that city after her to watch her; went to her in her brother-in- law's, she said her husband had left her without a cent and had gone to California; she sailed for Liverpool in the 'Saint Louis," and witness went in a steamer after her, and arriving in Liverpool, before her saw her land; after she had said witness went to a Notary Public and the British Consul and other parties and got certain writings from them that he might be able to follow him wherever he went; OLWILL told him that certain vessels which he had coopered for him were full of copper, whereas there was only a little copper on the top and the rest was only broken bottles, so that broken bottles were thus bought at the price of copper. This the Company to which he made the sale, swore before the British Minister. He had Mrs. OLWILL made known to the detectives in Liver- pool; one of them had her pointed out to him, and he kept an eye on her until he saw her shipped for Dublin; witness followed her, and learned that she had gone on to Athlone;; witness followed again; stayed a day there and then came to Granard, where he learned that the woman had gone to Crossdoney, thence he tracked her to Cavan and found that she was in Mr. M'CORMICK's Bridge-street, knowing that the husband and wife were not far removed from each other, he had informations lodged against him, and went with the police to search for him; found him on the cockloft or garrett, all trembling and seeming as if he would faint. Cross-examined by Mr. SWANZY--Was in no difficulties himself when he sold the goods; was not charged about a slave killed; but the prisoner was in bonds for stealing a horse, and only for this he thinks he would not have run away; OLWILL was in New Orleans until about the 23rd of May; did not see him leaving that day, and would think it strange if he had the Captain's certificate that he did not sail to the 27th of June; he should have said the 23rd of June, not of May, was the day on which he sailed. Mr. SWANZY maintained that there was no felony in the case; there was a mere sale between the parties, and if it had taken place in Dublin, none but a civil action could be instituted....(more discussion) The Bench ruled that the affidavits in the case were not legal evidence, and could not be acted upon. The case was therefore dismissed without prejudice. _____________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project