ANGLO-CELT OCTOBER 19, 1854 CAVAN QUARTER SESSIONS (Continued from last week) Michael M' CARRET was charged with stealing £15 4s. from the person of Christopher RORKE, in Cavan, on 14th August last. Christopher RORKE examined by Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG--Found prisoner with his hand in his (witnesses's) pocket, to which he had fifteen pounds rolled up in notes, silver, and gold. He was standing in Mr. M'GAURAN's shop at the time; seized prisoner's hand on the moment, and held it until he gave him up to the police. The money was gone. It was there three minutes before he caught the prisoner's hand. Though the hand was held, still prisoner got it out of the pocket, and could easily have given it to some one of four or five others who were round him, and had their arms about him. Cross-examined by Mr. KNIPE--Came to the fair to sell cattle. Drank none before he sold the cattle, but drank one or two half glasses after- wards. Caught no other person but the prisoner, nor did he accuse any one else. Guilty. There being no proof of any previous conviction here, the prisoner was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment at hard labour from his committal. POTATO STEALING John DEMPSEY, for stealing potatoes from the garden of Henry HAUGHTON. Guilty. Four years' penal servitude. ONLY A SUSPICION Patrick M'CABE was charged for stealing seventeen pounds from the person of William MORROW, in Armagh, on 1st May last. The prosecutor proved to his having the money in Mr. COSTELLOE's in Arvagh, and that the prisoner threw his arms round him, and, after, he got him off, he missed the money. James MORROW, sister to last witness, proved to seeing a person like witness outside COSTELLOE's door. Court--There is nothing but suspicion against him. Acquitted. ___________________________ EJECTMENTS James DEGNAN v. Bernard SHERIDAN An action for recovery of two acres of the lands of Drumrockady, belonging to the plaintiff, as assignee of one John CAHILL, on termination of a demise for six years made to the defendant. Mr. TULLY stated the case--CAHILL assigned to his client part of the lands of Drumrockady, including the two acres in question, which he said were leased to defendant for six years. When that term expired, ejectment was brought for recovery, but a lease purporting to be for three lives was produced, and a dismiss obtained. After the trial in this court, some men who were drinking with defendant took the lease from him and it was sought for this to blacken DEGNAN's character, as if for his own purposes he had the man robbed of his lease. That lease came into the hands of the parish priest or curate, and from them into possession of Mr. M'CLINTOCK, Sub Inspector, in whose hands it now was; he, Mr. TULLY, was prepared to show of it that it was a fabrication, a forgery, and could be no bar to the plaintiff's title. Mr. SWANZY, who was on the same side with Mr. TULLY, produced the assignment, and then put the defendant on his title--the alleged lease for three lives. G. F. H. M'CLINTON examined by Mr. KNIPE--Knew Jas. SMYTH; saw him write; he went to America, and witness heard that he was dead, (the lease handed to him); believe that the name 'James SMYTH' signed to the lease, as a witness, as in SMYTH's handwriting. Cross-examined by Mr. SWANZEY--Can write himself; SMYTH told him that he was going to make a settlement between CAHILL and the SHERIDANs, and afterwards that he had settled all; he told him that he had filed the lease; this was in the end of 47 (the lease purported to have been executed 17th April, 1845). Bernard SHERIDAN examined--Got a lease from CAHILL, which James SMYTH witnessed for; knows not who drew it; it was done before he saw it; paid £15 for what was therein leased to him. Cross-examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--It is ten years since the first agreement between witness and CAHILL was entered into; that was for a six years leave; that agreement was not signed, there being some difference between the parties. To the Court--All the parties signed the lease at the same time in the same house; knows not whether all wrote with the same ink or with the same pen; (witness's name was not written in the same ink which the other parties used). Cross-examination resumed--Never said that the lease was brought to him to be signed when he was sick in bed; knows Patrick FLOOD; he is a middling decent man; never said to him that he had a lease for six years only; remembers when the lands in question were about to be sold by auction; does not remember Mr. GIBNEY the auctioneer stating, that he, witness, had a lease of part of the lands for six years. Examination resumed--The lease was taken out of the house this time twelve months by night; gave information to the police and magistrate; did not see it for twelve months; then saw it with MR. M'CLINTOCK in Arva; a rap came to the door on the night it was stolen, and, on question being put, who was there, a voice replied, one with a note from Dr. O'REILLY of Ballinagh; the door was opened, and some persons came in and ransacked his chest, and presenting a pistol at witness, told him he had only a few moments to live; 'short enough said I'; 'you are a stout fellow, and I must treat you,' was the reply; a bottle whiskey was brought in, but witness would drink none of it. Cross-examination resumed--The priest got the lease and sent word to witness to come for it, but he would not; the priest was afterwards detained in Arva Court until the lease was forthcoming, and witness knows not that he told the magistrate how the priest had sent for him. Patrick FLOOD examined by Mr. TULLY--Often had conversation with SHERIDAN, as to these lands...... Laurence CLINTON examined by Mr. KNIPE--Remembers a meeting in his house in Ballinagh about a lease.... Plaintiff examined--Proved that John CAHILL died in 46, and James CAHILL went to America in 1847; the hand writings to the lease are not those of John and James CAHILL (produces); admitted hand-writing of those parties in proof. This worship declared his conviction, that the deed was a forgery. MR. KNIPE still insisted on a dismiss, as no evidence of a lease for six years to and at a certain time, had been given, and it was, as if such a lease had determined, that the ejectment was brought. Mr. SWANZY insisted that there was such evidence in the testimony of FLOOD, and in the fact that at a public auction the existence of such a lease was mentioned, and was not contradicted by the defendant who was present. The Court ruled with Mr. SWANZY, and granted a decree to possession. _____________________________ CIVIL BILLS NESBITT v. SEWELL An action for breach of warranty in a horse, sold to plaintiff. J. A. NESBITT, Esq., proved that, wanting a horse, the defendant came to him and offered one; witness asked was he all right; defendant replied, I never knew anything wrong with him; witness then said, on your recom- mendation I will take him as he is, and give you a pound more than I think he is value for. I will give 16l.; this was all; witness knew not whether this was a warranty, but he did not much regard it, as he wanted not money, but to expose chicanery under the garb of religion; defendant being a sanctimonious one and a Methodist Preacher (roars of laughter). Defendant examined--He did not pronounce the horse all right, as he believes. Mr. NESBITT took him as he was, being informed that he would draw, would take with the whip, and was of a forgiving temper. Mr. NESBITT--Did you not say to my servant, when I sent to inform you of the lameness, that you sold the horse, and got the money which was all you wanted? Witness--Could not say. ______GREGG examined--Was at the sale; the horse trotted, and he went along well enough for a heavy horse; thinks he was sound; Mr. NESBITT took him as he was; Mr. NESBITT's confidential man (ARMSTRONG) told witness since that Mr. NESBITT had no just complaint against defendant, as he took the horse as he was. Mr. KNIPE--Did you not say that SEWELL was a rascal for not taking the horse back? Witness No. Mr. COCHRANE--Is it to call his reverence a rascal? The Court ruled that there was no engagement and the case was dismissed. BEATTY v. HILL Mr. James ARMSTRONG opened the case--it was an action for 15l. for defendant, having taken possession of a bog, plaintiff's property, and prevented him from cutting turf thereon; defendant (agent to Captain ROEBUCK) himself got the bog for plaintiff in 1850, and he possessed it from that time up to this year. Mr. M'GAURAN, on the part of the defendant, pleaded right to the turf and bog, and that BEATTY's right was a mere permissive one, resulting from the kindness of Mr. HILL to his bailiff.... Martin BEATTY sworn--In April 1850, the landlord had a farm on hands, on which was some bog, plaintiff wrote to the landlord to get that bog; told Mr. HILL; he said, . 'I hope you will get it'. When Mr. HILL came from Dublin, he told witness he had got it, and they were to arrange the terms; plaintiff said he would give what was reasonable, 4l. an acre; Mr. HILL afterwards took that farm himself from the landlord, and said he would give to bog to witness (as long as he held the farm) for managing it for him. To the Court--Never paid rent. Cross-examined by Mr. M'GAURAN--Mr. HILL was agent there for some time; witness was steward for Mr. HILL--a faithful steward.... Mr. John ARMSTRONG put in evidence letter of Mr. HILL to Captain ROEBUCK in May 1850, stating that BEATTY was to give 4l.; an acre for the bog. Charles HILL, Esq., sworn--When the farm became vacant, by the ejection of the tenant, Captain ROEBUCK thought of keeping it in his own hands; witness took it afterwards as an amusement for himself; he let BEATTY cut turf on it, until he came to know him and found him dishonest The court ruled, that there was no possession by BEATTY, but a mere permission to cut turf, through the courtesy of Mr. HILL. He was merely as the servant of that gentleman, and it would be monstrous to construe such kindness into a possession. The case was dismissed. CONOLLY a. David FINLAY An action for 1l. due for car hire in bringing in voters for Captain MAXWELL at the election if 1852. Plaintiff examined by Mr. KNIPE--Was employed by Mr. FINLAY to drive in voters to Cavan in Mr. MAXWELL's interest; got a note also from Mr. FINLAY advising him not to drive himself, as he was a voter, and the bribery oath might come against him if he received any money for car hire. All the men he brought plumped for MAXWELL, and above all others, he was careful to exclude any friend of Mr. ELLIS from a seat on his car; surely did not for ELLIS himself. Mr. FINLAY sworn--He never engaged CONNOLLY to drive in any voter; was no agent for Mr. MAXWELL that he could employ persons to carry his voters. Wrote to CONNOLLY about the bribery oath, but that was as the friend, not the agent of Captain MAXWELL. The Court ruled, that there was no liability as far as Mr. FINLAY was concerned and CONNOLLY's claim was therefore dismissed. DONOHOE a. REILLY An action for assault. Mary DONOHOE, plaintiff examined--Was beat, abused, and trampled upon by defendant on 20th July last, when she went to vindicate the character of her child, whom he had insulted; her legs were bruised, her bones dislocated, &c. Cross-examined by Mr. John ARMSTRONG--Has a good tongue enough; did not curse defendant on the occasion in question, but rather poured benedictions on him; never said that she would kill him by cursing, as she had killed his cow and his wife by the same means. Defendant examined--On the occasion in question, plaintiff gave him at once her own seven curses, and those of her five children; said she would kill him with curses, and read the 109th psalm backwards against him. Plaintiff--I did not, your worship. If I could kill by cursing it is not his cow I would kill. Defendant's examination continued--Plaintiff brought him before the magistrates, and had him fined there in one pound. To the Court--Cannot say whether he kicked plaintiff when he had knocked her down; thinks he gave her a little one, when she was leaving the door; does not know whether he tore her cap or gown. Mr. ARMSTRONG insisted that in going to an inferior tribunal--the magistrates--she was barred all access to the superior one here. The court ruled that, it was only as to a criminal tribunal she had applied to the Petty Sessions. Now she applied to a civil tribunal, and he would give her a decree for one pound. KERNAN v PRITCHELL An action for breach of warranty in a cow sold to plaintiff. James KERNAN, plaintiff's son examined--Proved the sale and warranty by defendant, servant to Mr. SMITH, J.P. Defendant denied the warranty. Mr. SMITH's usual course was never to give an engagement. Wm. SMITH, Esq., J.P., examined--Some of his cows were distempered last year, none this year. This cow, when she went to be sold was, as far as he knew, a most sound one. Witness sold at last Christmas eve a cow at a price little above that of the akin to M'GUINNELL a butcher in Ballynagh; she had died; does not know that the butcher intended to sell the carcass for Christmas beef. Court--Is it possible that you, a magistrate, knowing your duty, would sell anything that might have been distributed amongst the people, so as to case all kind of distempers to arise amongst them. Witness--Does not think that distempered beef would breed disease amongst the people. Besides that cow was not, he thought, distempered. The Court knew nothing more calculated to cause disorders than unsound food. Thomas DONOHOE proved to the engagement by PRITCHELL. A jury consisting of Messrs. Thomas REILLY, Edw, PLUNKET, and James BROWN, was sworn to try the case. John MAHON--Is a butcher; saw the cow after about six days and knew by her that she had the distemper; opened her after she died and her lights were most diseased. The calf she had was a sickly one, too, and had to be killed. Cross-examined--Few cows distempered to live a month. Mr. SMITH re-examined--Sold three cows about a month ago to GUINELL the Butcher, one for 10s., one for 25s., and one for 30s. Two of them were incurably bad, of murrain, he is sure, and the other was pining from the time he got her. Decree for nine pounds. James MORRIS v. John William HENRY An action for the labour in watching cattle, belonging to one Mr. KNIGT, which were left to an open field in consequence of defendant, as an engineer on the Midland Great Western Railway, having thrown down the fence. Court--Who employed the plaintiff, Mr. ARMSTRONG? Mr. ARMSTRONG--Mr. HENRY did not, your worship. Court--Then let him look to him who did. The case was dismissed. ____________________________________________________________ County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project