ANGLO-CELT AUGUST 31, 1854 CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS.--Monday, August 28 ONLY A WEEKLY TENANT William HAGUE v. William GODFREY The action was possession of a house in Lurganboy. Mr. Robert HAGUE applied as an apprentice to have the case called out of its order as he wanted to go and attend to his business. Mr. MONTGOMERY, he said, would prove the service of the notice, and he (Mr. Robert) would prove anything else. The leave was recorded. Mr. Robert HAGUE sworn--Proved that GODFREY was a weekly tenant, although he paid only at intervals of eight and four months, he being a sweep who had money coming in to him at those times for public business. His defence evidently was-- Mr. DOPPING--Never mind his defence, let him tell that himself. The receipts were produced and showed that he paid for so many weeks on all occasions. Mr. SMITH--Does he owe any rent? Mr. HAGUE--He does five weeks' having paid up all he owed last assizes in the usual course. Court--It is clear enough that defendant is a weekly tenant; let there be a decree to possession. MASTER, MISTRESS, AND MAN Bernard M'LENNAN v. Richard BRADY A charge of leaving service before the time which he was engaged to serve expired. Messrs. John AMRSTRONG and E. M'GAURAN appeared for the complainant, and Mr. M. TULLY for the defendant. Mr. TULLY called for the evidence of Bernard, but Mr. ARMSTRONG said that Bernard was a nonentity, the wife, an active shrewd woman did all his business, for he took a drop too much himself. Mr. TULLY--Surely he does not drink more than his wife. Mrs. M'LENNAN examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--Proved the hiring of Richard BRADY, for a certain time, at a certain rate, and that he left his employment before his term was expired. She sent after him and the messenger was told-- Mr. M'GAURAN-Oh! never mind he will tell himself. Cross-examined by Mr. TULLY--Hired BRADY in July; paid him something; how much, is none of Mr. TULLY's business. Mr. TULLY--Did you give him more than a halfpenny worth of tobacco. Witness--That same could not be got without money. I gave him eight pence worth. Mr. TULLY--Where did you put him to lie? Mrs. M'LENNAN--What's that to you? Mr. TULLY--I am inquisitive and must know. Witness--On a good straw bed in the kiln. Mr. TULLY--Were the geese his bed-fellows? Witness--No, they were not. Michael DOWD proved to the hiring of the defendant by Mrs. M'LENNAN; he left about three weeks after he hired; defendant was well treated and never complained; witness was only treated in the same way; but defendant lay in the kiln not up stairs. Cross-examined by Mr. TULLY--Defendant slept on the loft in the kiln with another boy from the poorhouse. Defendant asked to be he hired two days before the contract was entered into; did not see or hear of defendant receiving any bad treatment. Mr. SMITH said that he had doubts on the subject, for defendant it was alleged, hired for four months for 7s. 6d. and this was clearly far too little. Mr. TULLY said he would call for the evidence of Bernard, he got due notice that he would be examined to-day, and his name is in the summons. His evidence is important for the defendant. Mr. TULLY's defence was, that when defendant went back to his work, Bernard threatened to kick him. Mr. DOPPING recollected quite well the notice given last court day that Bernard's evidence would be required, and it was quite fair that it should be seen whether defendant did not get cause to leave the service. Defendant to the court--The reason he left was because he was paid only in halfpenny worth of tobacco, and 'whereas washing was promised to him he only got one shirt washed during the entire three weeks he was in M'LENNAN's. Besides, he got no blanket but only a bag to cover him at night. Mr. ARMSTRONG wondered at the remark. A verbal notice was given last court day that complainant's evidence would be required, and who would not agree that it was a most unusual course for a defendant to think of summoning to give evidence, the man who appeared complainant in a summons against him. The case was postponed for an hour that M'LENNAN might be able to appear. After the hour M'LENNAN appeared and was examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--Never gave reason to defendant to leave his service; never said an angry work to him. Cross-examined by Mr. TULLY--Even after he went away and came back, witness never threatened or had an angry word with BRADY. It was believed that BRADY had left his service unjustly, but punishment was not insisted on against him. "KEEP OFF THE GRASS" Peter BRADY v. Bernard WALLS A charge for trespass of defendants sheep on complainants clover. Mr. BRADY's herd proved to the trespass, but could not specify the day on which it was committed. Mr. BRADY himself told that the offence was alleged to be committed on the day he ordered the summons and that was the 1th. The Magistrates ruled that this was no evidence of the date and WALLS could not be forced to defend himself against a charge committed at some indefinite period. The complaint was dismissed, Mr. SMITH remarking that the defendant should rather enter into the merits of it. DRUNK OR SOBER CODY and FERN v. SODEN A charge for being drunk at Stradone. We reported this case fully a month ago, when the magistrates disagreed upon it and only give now whatever new facts come to light. CODY proved that when he met SODEN on the road he was 'very drunk;' He had met him before on that night at widow CULLEN's and did not arrest him because he had a man to protect him and see him safe home, and on cross-examination, asserted that the reason why he did not arrest him when he saw him first, was because he could not say that he was then drunk; even though he had another man with him to protect him he would have arrested him when he saw him last. Did not charge Frank HIGGINS with being drunk. FERN corroborated CODY; SODEN was drunk when witness met him, and was worthy of being arrested when SODEN was first seen he was evidently after taking liquor, but he was drunker when seen secondly. Thinks SODEN would not be able to go home; he might or he might not; thinks he might not have as well have stood on his head. Michael MARTIN was barrack orderly on the night in question. SODEN was brought in and he was drunk. Witness put on his coat which he was not able to do himself. Then put him into the lockup where he did not go to see him afterwards. H never asked a drink during the time he was there; thinks SODEN was so drunk that it would not be safe to trust him to go home. Cross-examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--If a man was half drunk and then dragged 200 or 300 yards along the road it might make him more drunk in some cases and more sober in others. Witness was the guard from whom SODEN escaped on a previous occasion when he was taken for being drunk; knew him well when he saw him; did not fall asleep on that night a policeman seldom does when he is on guard. SODEN knocked during the night twice and asked to go home, or to be allowed to get out and warm himself; he never asked to get out to the yard or for a drink. To Mr. DOPPING--The only thing he did before I put him in the lockup was to ask about his money and to seize a piece of paper which he put into pocket, saying "thank God I have this any way."--He was not able to put on his coat and staggered when being brought into the lockup, and those were the proofs he would give of his drunkenness. Sergeant BRENNAN alleged an acknowledgment in the morning by SODEN that he was drunk, and had acted badly by the police, and called on James REILLY to corroborate him. James REILLY sworn--Heard a conversation between SODEN and Sergeant BRENNAN, in which BRENNAN accused SODEN of being drunk according to the policeman's report, and SODEN said that he was not drunk, and that the policemen dragged his cloths off him. He did not say a word of having acted rashly with the police, but showed his shins which were all bloody and full of cuts, and complained that his arms were as badly off. He also spoke about his wanting a drink during the night. To Sergeant BRENNAN--Heard SODEN saying to querist if he would allow him to go home and summon him without dragging him in that day to Cavan, he would feel obliged. In witness's presence SODEN never acknowledged drunkenness or misconduct on his own part, but the contrary. Mr. THOMPSON--How do you reconcile these two things--that he said what he took had effect upon him and that he was not drunk? Mr. M'GAURAN--He comes here to corroborate the sergeant which he has quite failed to do, and not to reconcile all that SODEN may have spoken. Besides, it is clear enough that liquor might have an effect on a man who was not the same time drunk. Francis HIGGINS was with SODEN on the night in question; saw CODY and FERN that night after SODEN had gone towards his own home, CODY saw he was drunk and should go to the barrack and brought him by the collar towards the barracks, assisted by FERN. They then let him go on seeing that he could walk and even run. SODEN was not drunk then, he would not say that he was sober, but he was able to work at will he is now. To Mr. THOMPSON--Could not drink a quart himself or even a pint as he judges. Mr. M'GAURAN--Tell Mr. THOMPSON that you will go over by and by and try. MR. M'GAURAN left the case in their worships' hands. Were the police worthy of credit? Did they accuse HIGGINS of being drunk, for they asserted that they did not? If they did they were unworthy of credit for he was a disinterested witness, whereas their officer was here present to report the police and have them punished if they did wrong. SODEN alleges vindictiveness and gave sufficient reasons why there might be such a feeling against him. If there was a feeling, if SODEN thought he was sober, then he was one would think he acted properly enough, for it can never be in this country that any man could crush his follow and maltreat him but of private pique. The police are a useful body, but the powers they wield are so great that they ought to be strictly looked to and narrowly observed in all their movements. Mr. ERSKINE though that SODEN was drunk. Mr. SMITH thought so too. Mr. THOMPSON agreed with them. Mr. DOPPING adhered to his former opinion; he did not believe SODEN drunk. SODEN applied for an appeal. Mr. THOMPSON--You are only fined 5s. and you cannot have a right of appeal unless you are fined a pound at least. MR. M'GAURAN--Fine him a pound or two, if you like. Mr. THOMPSON--No, I think five shillings are enough to meet the justice of the case. MR. M'GAURAN did not agree; if his assault was unjustifiable he ought to be fined more than a pound. It was then resolved the SODEN be fined 5s. for being drunk; and five for the assault with costs and this precluded the right of appeal. Mr. SMITH--I must say if the policemen on the night in question had left SODEN to go home peaceably they could not be accused of a dereliction of duty. For this reason I would impose a fine of 6l. IMPORTANT TO BUYEES AND SELLER William SMITH, J.P. v. James HAMILTON A charge of refusing to pay complainant's servant girl for some butter she sold him. Mr. ARMSTRONG alleged that Mr. HAMILTON, residing in Newtown- butler, the magistrates here had no jurisdiction over him. Mr. THOMPSON said they had, as it occurred in a fair. Mr. ARMSTRONG contended that the act relative to fairs or markets gave them only jurisdiction so long as the fair lasted, or a power to decide thereupon on adjournment. Mr. SMITH--I beg your pardon; there is not a word of what you are saying in the act. Mr. ARMSTRONG--No, but is for common sense to take the construction I put upon it. Mr. THOMPSON--I confess I have great doubts on the matter, but would you not advise your client to waive that technicality and get into the merits of the case. Mr. SMITH said it was brought under the jurisdiction of a magistrates by his signing the summons. Mr. THOMPSON believed that the words "at once submitted to a magistrate" were precise and determinate on the matter. He did not agree that because Mr. HAMILTON resided out of the district he was, therefore, unamenable but he believed that being brought under the fair and market act, it should at once be brought under the cog- nizance of a magistrate. MR. SMITH--The fact of the magistrate signing a summons on the subject was a kind of hearing of it. Mr. THOMPSON hardly thought so, for all the parties were not there present so that it could be said a hearing took place. Mr. DOPPING entering his opinion as to the construction of the act was taken. It was favourable to the interpretation of it by Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. ARMSTRONG--Then you dismiss it. Mr. DOPPING--Surely you will not stand on the mere law, independent of equity or justice. The point is a nice one like every one that Mr. ARMSTRONG raises, none of which are brought forward without reason in their favour, but it is not every one who can see them. Mr. ARMSTRONG persisted in standing upon the rigour of the law and the dismiss was recorded accordingly ___________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project