ANGLO CELT - March 3, 1853 -- part 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECORD COURT, CAVAN. Friday, Feb. 25, 1853. (Before Chief Justice Monahan.) The Right Hon. the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas took his seat on the bench at ten o'clock this morning, and proceeded(sic) immediately with the appeals. The first heard was that of Wilson, Appellant ; Benjamin Armstrong (Attorney), respondent. His Lordship directed that three jurors, namely, Messrs. GRIFFITH, CLEMENGER, and BLACK, should be sworn in the case, it appearing that a question as to facts would arise. Mr. Benjamin ARMSTRONG, the respondent, was sworn and examined. He stated that the appellant, Mr. WILSON, was a tenant on a property near Bailieborough belonging to Mr. and Mrs. HASSARD, two very litigious persons. The Hassards took proceedings against Wilson to evict him from his farm when Wilson applied to him (respondent to take the necessary steps for his defence. He (respondent) did so, and succeeded in defeating the landlord. His bill of costs, ... amounting to 12£ odd, which appellant refused to pay, was the matter now in dispute, and for which he (Mr. A.) obtained a decree in the barrister's court. Cross-examined by Mr. Johnston -- Did not promise respondent to apprise him before filing the declaration -- thought it unnecessary. (Here two letters were produced, which Mr. A. admitted to have been written by him to Wilson, telling what he had done in the suit and containing a promise of further letters). Respondent, in reply to counsel, stated that it was after those letters had been written that the greater part of the costs were incurred. A bailiff was examined, who deposed that he served the appellant with the bill of costs, and that on presenting him with it he (witness) read over some of the items together with the gross amount to Wilson and that the latter then remarked that he thought 5£ or 6£. should satisfy Mr. Armstrong's claim in addition to £2. which he (Mr. A.) held of his. Dr. CLARKE of Bailieborough was examined for the appellant. He stated that the Hassards were in the habit of harassing their tenants with vexatious legal proceedings, and that in January, '49 they caused a writ to be served upon Mr. WILSON, when the latter came to him (witness) and requested he would accompany him to the appellant to engage his professional services. Witness declined going without another person, accordingly they brought appellant's son as an additional witness. As seeing Mr. Armstrong in his office, he (witness) gave him 1£. to enter an appearance for Wilson, remarking at the time that it was not likely the Hassards would go farther with the suit, but that Mr. Armstrong was to inform appellant before incurring any further expenses on his account. To this Mr. Armstrong distinctly agreed. Witness heard no more of the affair until appellant came with the bill of costs to him, when he waited on Mr. Armstrong and reminded him of the agreement ; Mr. A. then ! said that Wilson could stop the amount of his bill from the Hassards when paying them his rent, but Mr. Wilson refused to do so. Mr. Wilson was next examined, and he corroborated Dr. Clarke's testimony. With reference to the 2£ in dispute, he said that in paying the Deputy Clerk of the Peace some money in the Bailieborough court-house he gave him a 3£ note ; the latter took his demand out of it and was handing the balance, 1£. 18s. 4 1/2 d. to him (appellant), when Mr. Armstrong, who was next the clerk, "grabbed" the money (laughter), and kept it ever since (roars of laughter). Appellant's son deposed to the facts stated by his father and Dr. Clarke. The jury was unanimous in favour of the appellant Stephen Finn, appel., Pat Soraghan respondent. The respondent, on being sworn, stated, that one morning in last May, being in Arva, he went into appellant's shop and asked for change of three 1£ notes ; appellant's wife was behind the counter and gave him the change ; shortly after he (witness) left Arva, on his way to Frenchpark fair it occurred to him that he might have made a mistake as he had notes to the amount of 40£ with him ; he did not, however, then examine the notes but waiting until he got into his lodgings in Carrick on Shannon when he counted his money in the presence of another person, and discovered that he had given a 10£ note in place of a 1£ note to Mrs. FINN. Cross-examined -- He never opened the money from the left Arva until he arrived in Carrick; the note was a black Belfast one ; it was the only 10£. note he had but he had some 2£. ones ; can read print; did not look at the notes when giving them to Mrs. Finn, but is positive the 10£ one was amongst them. On his return from Frenchpark, applied to Mrs. Finn for the 9£ balance, but she denied having received the 10£. note. The appellant, Mr. Finn, is a respectable man. Patt PRUNTY stated he was present in Carrick when SORAGHAN examined the money and said he had given Mrs. Finn 10£ in mistake for 1£. ; travelled from Arva on the car with Soraghan ; did not see a 10£ note with him in the morning, or at all that day. Mrs. Finn was about being produced on behalf of her husband, the appellant, when his lordship stated she could not be examined in the case on behalf of her husband. Appellant's attorney stated she had been examined before the assistant-barrister for this county. On being told, he remarked she ought not to have been examined in the case at all and sent her of the table. Stephen FINN sworn -- Was at the fair of Scrabby the morning Soraghan got the change in his shop. On his return home he examined the money his wife had and what was in the till ; found 9£ and some silver in all ; had left 6£ with his wife when going to the fair ; is positive there was no 10£ note amongst what his wife had. The Chief Justice summed up the evidence observing that Soraghan had not proved that he had a 10£ note in his possession on the day alluded to -- at least no one saw it with him ; and it seemed strange that a man who had notes of various amounts mixed together would not look at them before paying them away. The triers, contrary to the opinion of his lordship, found in favour of Soraghan. The decree was then affirmed, and the triers of jury discharged. James Berry, appel. Patrick Lee, respn. This was against a decree obtained in the lower court for 8l. wages owed to Lee by appellant ..... brother, the late Thomas Berry, Esq., coroner. Patt LEE examined -- Witness deposed that he had been employed by the late Mr. Thomas Berry at 11£ per day, and that he allowed his wages to run on until it amounted to 13£., 19s. 10d. ; that on the death of Mr. Thomas Berry, his brother, the appellant deposed of the effects ; that he (Lee) applied to Mr. James Berry for the wages owed to him and received in answer to his application the sum of 3£ which left a balance of 10£. 19s . 10d ; appellant said that ought to satisfy him, but he replied he would look for the remainder ; he (Lee), in order to avoid law, offered to take 8£. in lieu of what remained due, which, he supposed, is the reason why the Barrister gave him the decree for the 8£. only ; respondent cannot read or write ; he kept a wooden account (laughter), which he got transcribed. James BERRY, Esq., appellant, on being examined, stated, that his brother, the late Thomas Berry, died intestate ; that he left very little property to meet his debts, and that he (appellant), at the request of the widow and children, had two auctions held of the effects of deceased ; that the money received at those sales was paid by him to the widow and creditors ; (account of the disbursements produced) ; that, in consequence of having had to do with the affair, he was obliged to pay some of the creditors a considerable sum of his own money that had no money or goods of the deceased to meet respondent's demand. The Chief Justice affirmed the decree on the ground of appellant having "intermeddled" with the property of the deceased. James Hamilton, Esq., J.P., Appel., Thomas Farrelly, Respondent. This was an appeal against a decree confirming the respondent in possession of a small piece of bog on the property of appellant. It appeared by the evidence of a Mr. David FINLAY and of a bailiff formerly on the estate, that the respondent never paid rent for the bog, which was given to him free by Mr. SOUTHWELL a good many years ago when he was owner of the estate. The statute of limitations now intervened, FARRELLY having held the bog rent-free beyond the number of years requisite to give him a title in fee. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree in favour of Farrelly. Wm. Bell, Esq., Sub-Sheriff, Appel., Rev. H. Connolly, Respondent. The case arose out of some transaction in which Mr. BELL was paid more than legal fees. The assistant-barrister granted a decree to respondent for the difference between the fees actually paid and which he ought to have paid. Mr. BELL appealed, but altered his mind before the case was called on. He affirmed the decree, and awarded Mr. CONNOLLY travelling expenses. Clarke, Appel., Blacker, Resp. This was a dispute about rent which accrued due to the landlord Mr. BLACKER, out of seven acres of bog held by the defendant at Ballynamoney. The case was unimportant. A decree had been obtained against Clarke for 27£. rent ; he sought relief, inasmuch as the bog was somewhat of a common on which the neighbours grazed their cattle. His lordship confirmed the decree, reducing it, however, to 23£. Andrew Galligan, appel.; Susan Berry of Macken, Michael Byrne of New York, and Edward Plunket of Dunowen, Esq.., respondents. For appellant -- Mr. PEEBLES, with Mr. TULLY, Attorney. For defendant -- Mr. JOHNSTON, with Mr. KNIPE, attorney. The appellant, who is a shopkeeper in Kilnaleck in this county, was decreed at the last Quarter Sessions of Cavan, for the sum of 5£,5s. for the use and occupation of a house and premises in the town of Kilnaleck, held and occupied by him from and under the respondents as trustees. On the case being entered into a conversation arose between counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. PEEBLES was of opinion that this was a trial on title ; Mr. JOHNSTON thought quite the contrary. Edward PLUNKETT, Esq., Donowen examined -- He knew Andrew GALLIGAN to be in possession of the holding for eight or ten years ; the take was overheld by Galligan but not under the will made by the late John George LENAUZE, to which will the present respondents were trustees ; was not aware of the existence of a marriage settlement ; he (witness) was formerly receiver over the lands under the Court of Chancery ; was not receiver now, but could not tell whether he had been discharged by the court from office. As it was necessary to ascertain if Mr. PLUNKET(sic) had been formally discharged from the office of receiver, his lordship adjourned the further hearing of the case until the next day. On the case being resumed on the following day, it was proved that the late John George LENAUZE, at his marriage, made a settlement devising his property to the issue of his then marriage, if there would be any, and making his wife trustee for the benefit of the children in case of his demise, also securing to the wife certain rights in the property. There was issue the daughter by the marriage, who died a minor. Mr. LENAUZE also died some years ago, but before his decease he made the will under which respondents claim to act as trustees. In some time after, the widow married a Mr. MALONE, and it was under Mr. and Mrs. MALONE GALLIGAN claimed to hold, Mrs. MALONE having become administratrix to her late husband, Mr. LENAUZE. The Chief Justice observed that no will could annul the provisions of a marriage settlement. After a lengthened discussion between counsel on both sides, the court conceived that Mrs. Elizabeth MALONE having taken an administration to John George LENAUZE (her first husband) and also to the minor, that the respondents therefore could not recover without the consent of the administratrix, and reversed the decree. The learned judge condemned the proceedings against Galligan, and further remarked that landlords should settle their disputes without harrassing their tenants. This was the last of the appeals. The court next proceeded to try the records. EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS. John Patterson v. Samuel Martin. The following gentlemen were sworn on the jury in this case: Alexander CLEMENGER, T. PRINGLE, Francis M'CABE, David KELLETT, Wm. Moore BLACK, Anthony KILROY, David GRIFFITH, Wm. FARIS, Richard O'REILLY, John BEATTY, Alexander KETTYLE(sic), and Thos. PHILLIPS, Esqrs. Mr. John RICHARDSON opened the pleadings. This was action on the case brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of 162£. from the defendant, which the former paid for the latter as receiver under the Court of Exchequer, in the year 1852, although an ......... contract existed between them that the defendant would indemnify and bear the plaintiff harmless. Damages were laid at 100£., to which the defendant pleaded the general issue and non-assumpsit. Mr. Robert JOHNSTON stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff is a respectable gentleman farmer, residing near Lisnaskes(Lisnasken? Lisnaskea?), in the county of Fermanagh, but formerly of Clinross, near Killeshandra, in the county of Cavan. The defendant, who is cousin-german of the plaintiff, resides at Tullyvin, near Cootehill, is a lieutenant on half-pay of the Cavan militia, one of the Cootehill Quarter Sessions grand jury, and an ex-poor law guardian. Dr. John MACFADEN, of Cootehill, one of the coroners for the county of Cavan, lent, in conjunction with Mr. JAMESON, the manger of the Cootehill branch of the Ulster Banking Company, a sum of 1,000£. to Mr. John GUMLEY, barrister-at-law, under a deed of annuity, and in the year 1846 Mr. Richard MONTGOMERY, late of Cootehill, and No. 9, North Great George's-street, Dublin, solicitor (now deceased), attorney for Dr. MACFADEN, took proceedings in the Court of Exchequer to recover the loan. The consequence of which was ! that a receiver was ordered to be appointed over Mr. GUMLEY's property under the Court of Chancery until the demands of the creditors would be discharged. The defendant, who was brother-in-law to Mr. MONTGOMERY, wished to become receiver, but found he count not, as a rule of court, expressly forbids the appointment as receiver of any relative of the solicitor in the cause ; he then applied to the plaintiff to allow his name to be put forward as receiver on the property, to which the latter at once consented on account of the friendship which then subsisted(sic) between them. The plaintiff was accordingly nominated receiver, and entered into the requisite recognizance before the court ; but further than that he had nothing to do with the property, the defendant being the actual receiver, collecting the rents, &c. He (counsel) would not justify this conduct, as it was to some extent reprehensible ; but referred to the matter in order that the jury might rightly understand t! he circumstances of the case. On this arrangement being made, the plaintiff went round the tenants and informed them that they were to pay their rents to Mr. MARTIN. From time to time he (plaintiff) gave defendant bundles of blank receipts with his name signed thereon to give the tenants when paying their rent. This system continued for several years, matters going on amicably until the year 1852, when the plaintiff, under threat of an attachment, was obliged to pay 162£. 6s. 10d. into court, in which sum the defendant had become a defaulter. The jury were to bear in mind that Mr. MARTIN was to receive all the fees and emoluments of the receivership for himself, and to be responsible to his client (Mr. PATTERSON) for damage or loss, so that the latter should be in nor way interested in the matter further than being the nominal receiver to oblige his friend. The plaintiff was served with a notice by the court in January, 1852, to wind up his accounts in order to be disch! arged from the receivership. The property was partly in Cavan and partly in Louth, on the former portion the sum of 639£. 18s. 10d. was due the court, and on the latte 26£. 8s., making a total of 666£. 6s. 10d. Mr. MONTGOMERY, the receiver's attorney, having died, his son, Mr. Samuel MONTGOMERY, and Mr. LEECH entered into partnership and became the attorneys to the receiver. Subsequently Mr. LEECH became the sole attorney. The plaintiff on receiving the notice referred to, applied to Mr. LEECH, who informed him of the 666£. 6s. 10d. being owed to the court. Mr. LEECH, by plaintiff's directions, wrote immediately to the defendant for the sum named to pay it into court, when Mr. MARTIN, in reply, remitted him 504£ and stated that plaintiff owed him the remainder. This sum Mr. LEECH paid into court on the 16th of April to the credit of the cause, and shortly afterwards Mr. PATTERSON (the plaintiff) paid in the remaining 162£. 6s., 10d., to avoid worse consequences. It ap! pears, gentlemen of the jury, that there were several bill transactions between the parties for the accommodation of each other prior to tide(?), on one of which my client is indebted in 41£. to the defendant ; this was give him credit for and claim the balance of 162£/ 6s. 10d. The defendant, I believe, alleges that my client owed him this latter sum on other bills -- a most false and fraudulent assertion as I will show you by-and-by -- but even supposing he did, was it fair or honest of the defendant to leave him in the dilemma in which he did ; -- to abandon him without notice, not caring whether he were sacrificed or not? and this, too, after his kindness in lending himself to procure him (defendant) employment. If my client owed this money on bills, as alleged, why did not the defendant sue him upon those bills ? But he did not do so, nor doe he venture to say that my client is not perfectly solvent. It would have been to the credit of Martin if he had settled this! matter without allowing it into court. The correspondence between the parties is voluminous, gentlemen, and I propose handing it all in as evidence. Mr. Leech, the attorney referred to, was examined. He deposed to the balance sheet, and the payment of the sums into court, as mentioned by counsel. To Mr. MAJOR, Q.C. -- The cause of MACFADDIN v. Gumley was transferred to Mr. HAMILTON after the late Mr. MONTGOMERY's decease ; plaintiff verified the balance sheet on oath before the Remembraneer ; there is a standing order in Chancery that a relative of the solicitor cannot be receiver ; the defendant frequently sent up sums of money before the 50 1/2£. ; the Master was aware of the arrangement between PATTERSON and MARTIN. Sine papers were here produced, amongst others the report of the Master in Chancery appointing the plaintiff to the receivership in August, 1846. The plaintiff, John PATTERSON, was then sworn and examined by Mr. RICHARDSON. He stated his interviews with the defendant previous to being appointed receiver, and admitted that there was no written indemnity given or required by him from defendant, having confidence in his honour, but after he had been so appointed, the defendant volunteered, or it was implied by him that he would indemnify plaintiff. Defendant procured the sureties and paid all expenses. The recognizances were entered into on the 17th of August, 1846. The plaintiff then deposed to signing blank receipts for MARTIN and to ordering the tenants to pay their rents ; he added that the fact of defendant acting as receiver was brought before the Master in July, 1849, when it was argued by counsel ; the Master said it was reasonable for plaintiff to appoint a deputy-receiver, and that it was a common occurrence. To the Court -- There was no charge made by the Master for default of tenants. Mr. BROOKE, Q.C., (for the defense), handed to witness a number of letters written by him to the defendant at different times urgently requesting the loan of considerable sums of money. Plaintiff admitted these letters to be genuine ; he was then handed a bill of exchange for 120£, on which his name appeared as the acceptor. Plaintiff vehemently denounced this as a forgery, although acknowledging his name on it to have been written by him. The plaintiff was called on by the court to explain how it was a forgery ? He said that being in Dublin with the defendant in Montgomery's office at the time he went up to enter into recognisance as receiver, he (defendant) requested him to write his name on a blank five shilling bill stamp, saying that it was probable that he would have occasion to raise money for some purpose or object of his own, and which he consented to do, and when writing his name on it, he (defendant) desired him to write it on the end or margin of it, so that in the event of his not requiring the money he could cut off the signature without spoiling the stamp, and that he never saw it since until that moment, nor heard of it until lately, after he had required defendant to pay the money into court, nor did he hear of it from himself but from Dr. MACFADDEN, when he went over to Cootehill about payment of the money. Another bill was here handed to plaintiff, who said it was an honest one. It was a bill of his for 80£., which he got cashed in a Cootehill bank ; he reduced it at various times from 80£. to 41£; defendant then paid the 41£. and lifted the bill for him ; this was the sum of 41£. referred to by counsel which he (plaintiff) owed defendant. His lordship asked for the two bills. On comparing them, he remarked that the 80£. one had been in the bank, but the other was not nor did it appear to have been in circulation at all. He then handed them to the jury, who returned them in a few minutes, a juror making some observations on their appearance. Mr. MAJOR inquired what the juror had said. Chief Justice -- The jury think the 120£. bill worth very little -- the acceptor's name is written on the wrong side of it. On plaintiff's cross-examination by Mr. BROOKE, he admitted that he verified the receiver's account, although it was the defendant that received the rents and pocketted(sic) the fees. He did so because he ha confidence in defendant. And having been asked why he signed the black stamp and never inquired from defendant about it afterwards, he replied, "Because I was a fool." He then identified a letter in which he solicited defendant to procure a bill to be discounted for him by the doctor (Dr. MACFADEN(sic)), or that other person Bailieborough, Dr. TAYLOR, he believed, for 100£. to pay to Mr. DOBBIN, or he would lose the agency ; did not lose it although he did not get money through defendant, because he made it up from other resources ; could not tell how he made up that sum, nor who he got it from ; had no recollection whatever of how he got out of the difficulty. He (plaintiff) did not get from defendant the 130£. he asked of him to purchase heifers, as his grass or ha! y was going to waste. Defendant could not lend the money to him himself, as he was also in distressed circumstances, in proof of which a letter of defendant's was produced in which he again requested the accommodation of plaintiff's name to raise money upon it in the Clones bank, and, to induce him to comply with his request, he stated in it that he would give a portion of the money to the plaintiff, and in that letter he never mentioned that plaintiff was indebted to him in a sum of 120£., or any sum save the amount of the 41£. bill. The plaintiff's case having closed, Mr. MAJOR, Q.C., said he conceived that the court should non-suit the plaintiff, as he, conjointly with the defendant and their former solicitor, Mr. Richard MONTGOMERY, were guilty of a fraud upon the Court of Exchequer, in evading by subterfuge one of its most salutary rules, the prohibiting the relative of an attorney in a cause being appointed a receiver. The Chief Justice refused to non-suit, but said he would suggest to the jury (if Mr. MAJOR concurred) to return a verdict for the plaintiff and then defendant could bring his case before the Court of Error which would have the power reserved of reversing the verdict. Mr. MAJOR declined the learned judge's offer and proceeded with his address to the jury, referring with great minuteness to the different points at issue -- to the admitted pecuniary difficulties of the plaintiff, who, he said, would never have paid defendant if he did not stop the 162£. odd from him when closing the accounts for the receivership. The learned counsel read several letters (most of them without date save the day of the week) from plaintiff to defendant beseeching the loan of money, and concluded a very able address by calling upon the jury not to give credence to the evidence of a person like the plaintiff, who swore to and verified accounts of the details of which he knew nothing, except through the defendant. The defendant, Mr. MARTIN, was then sworn and examined. In reply to the questions put to him by counsel and the court he stated that he was charged with and had to pay 170£. which he did not receive ' this was partly on account of the defalcation of tenants and partly because certain proposals for the farms had been neglected by the then attorney in the cause, Mr. MONTGOMERY, with whom he had lodged them for a year and a half. He (defendant) frequently lent plaintiff money, on one occasion 200£., but never received the loan of any from him in return. He did not negotiate the 120£. bill now in court, because he did not require to do so ; he presented it to Dr. MACFADEN(sic) to be cashed, but the Doctor declined unless another name were got on the bill as he had heard PATTERSON was much involved in the banks ; got another name on the bill but did not again offer it to Dr. MACFADEN or any one else ; threw it in his desk, and got a bill of his own negotiated. The defendant f! urther swore that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the amount of the two bills for 120£. and 41£. which, with the interest due upon them, made up more than the 162£, 6s. 10d. which the plaintiff had paid for him into court ; and having been asked by the court to explain how he paid the plaintiff the 120£. for which he held his bill, he swore that he gave him 100£. in the town of Cootehill, and took his I O U for that sum, which he holds in hand;; it is dated 25th April, 1850 ; he afterwards gave plaintiff 20£. more, and took his bill for the 120£. -- (Defendant then produced the I O U. It was on a small bit of paper, and the date was in the handwriting of defendant, in black ink. The name "John Patterson: was in pale ink.) To the Court -- the I O U and the bill refer to the one transaction ; on the 2nd of April, 1850, I paid plaintiff 100£. and obtained this I O U from him ; on the 1st of Nov..following, I paid him 20£. more, when he gave me this bill of exchange for the 120£ ; he did not ask me for the I O U then or since ; I would have returned him the I O U but I hadn't it with me at the time. The plaintiff was recalled and the I O U shown to him, whereupon he again swore most solemnly that that was a forgery also, as he never either heard of or saw it before ; but the signature, "John Patterson" was in his handwriting ; and the only way he could explain it was, that the bottom of a letter or note of his was cut off by the defendant, with his name on it, and the defendant then wrote the I O U above it. Dr. MACFADEN was examined. In reply to an interrogatory from the bench he said that he had heard from Mr. MARTIN that he had those documents, one of which (the 120£. bill) he saw before. The Chief Justice having examined the I O U, stated that it was certainly a very suspicious document. Mr. BROOKE explained that two different kinds of ink -- one darker than the other -- might be obtained from the same ink bottle, and that the writing by or from a steel pen would be lighter in colour than that from a quill pen. SATURDAY, FEB. 26. The case was resumed this morning at ten o'clock, by Mr. JOHNSTON reading some twenty to thirty letters from defendant to plaintiff (many of them apparently irrelevant). After which Mr. BROOKE, Q.C., (having obtained leave from the court) addressed the jury for the defendant in a terse and vigorous speech. Mr. RICHARDSON replied and said, that either the plaintiff or defendant was a rouge(sic), as more rank or abominable perjury he never heard before perpetrated in a court of justice, and either the plaintiff or defendant had committed it. It was the province of the jury by their verdict to say which of them had committed it, and it was probably their verdict would lead to ulterior proceedings in another court. He then called their attention to the manner the signature was attached to the two documents, the bill of exchange for 120£., and the I O U for 100£., but more particularly to the latter as it appeared strange that defendant had written the body of it, although plaintiff could write much better hand, and paper must be very scarce in the county of Cavan, when so important a document was written on so small a bit ; and further it also appeared odd that it was so nicely cut, evidently with a pair of scissors, and that the upper parts of some of the letters of Mr. Patters! on's (the plaintiff's) name should go over the body of the I.O.U. The different coloured ink too was remarkable, as well as where the date was written. His lordship then charged the jury at great length pounding out the suspicious appearance of the I.O.U. and of the 120£. bill. (We regret we cannot make room for his lordship's admirable address). The jury having retired for some time, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff for 120£., and sixpence costs. The Chief Justice then called Mr. Samuel SWAZY ; the Clerk of the Crown, and handed the the (sic) 120£. bill and I O U for 100 , together with four letters which he himself selected to be impounded and kept by him until after the next assizes for the county, for the purpose of enabling Mr. John PATERSON, the plaintiff, to prosecute the defendant, Mr. Samuel MARTIN, for perjury. Livingston v. Theo. Thompson, J.P. This was an uninteresting record arising out of a dispute as to some half acre of bog in the neighbourhood of Redhills. It seems the plaintiff's property, called Killafanny, is on sale in the Incumbered Estates Court, and the Commissioners, previous to disposing of it, ordered an issue to be tried at this assizes to ascertain if the half acre of bog already referred to belonged to the plaintiff or to the defendant, Theo. THOMPSON, Esq., J.P., who owns the neighbouring property, called Leggakelly. The Court directed three gentlemen to go and view the place in dispute. They did so, and on their return the jury was sworn and the case tried. A host of witnesses were examined on both sides. It appeared by their evidence, which was conflicting in many particulars, that a patch of bog separates Killafanny from Leggakelly, and that through this bog a dirty little stream manages to find its way to an adjoining lake. The plaintiff contended that this rivulet should be taken as the mearing between Killafanny and Leggakelly, while the defendant, on the other hand, stoutly asserted, that although the rivulet was the boundary line for some distance yet that it had been diverted at some time not named from its original course into its present bed, and by this means the disputed angle of bog was cut off the Leggakelly side and added to Killafanny. A gullet was spoken of as the former bed of the stream which debouched somewhere or other in the vicinity of a solitary tree that st! ands up as a sentinel in the solitary waste. After a patient hearing of the case and a lucid charge from the judge, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The spring assizes then terminated. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL NOTICE TO CLAIMANTS ---- INCUMBERED ESTATE COMMISSION ---- In the matter of the ESTATE of EDWARD HUDSON, Trustee in Will of Rev. WILLIAM GRATTAN, Owner; Exparte, Rev. GIBSON BLACK, Administrator de bonis non of L. S. HERBERT, deceased, Petitioner, Take Notice, that the Commissioners have Sold the Lands of Sylvan Park, Beresfort, Seymourstown, and part of Drumbaragh, situate in the Barony of Kells, and COUNTY OF MEATH; and the lands of Tarnkinroad(Tankinroad?) and Clowney, situate in the Barony of Lower Loughton, and COUNTY OF CAVAN, and the Draft Schedule of Incumbrances being lodged in the office of the General Clerk, if any person have a claim not therein inserted or any objection to said Schedule, or any lien on the purchase money, a statement, duly verified, of the particulars of such claim, objection, or lien, must be lodged by such persons in said office, on or before the 19th day of April next ; and on the following Monday, at 11 o'clock, A.M., Mr. LONGFIELD, LL.D., one of the Commissioners, will give directions for the final settlement of said Schedule. And you are to take Notice, that within the time aforesaid, any person may file an objection to any demand reported to you in the said Draft Schedule. Dated the 19th day of February, 1853, HENRY CAREY, (Seal) Secretary, JOHN FARIS, Solicitor having carriage of Bale, 47m Lower Gardiner-street, Dublin. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSES TO LET ----- To be LET on moderate-terms, for such period as many be agreed on, and immediate possession given, THREE HOUSES IN THE LAWN, BELTURBET. possessing all the advantages requisite for respectable families. For particulars apply to JOHN ROGERS, Esq., Belturbet. Belturbet, March 2, 1853. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE RIGHT HON. JOSEPH NAPIER. ----- THE DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE FOR MARCH, Price 2s 6d., or by post 3s. CONTAINS: 1. The Crown Matrimonial of France. 2. Lectures at Mechanics' Institute. Lord Carliale - Lord Belfast. 3. Sonnets. Down -- Death. 4. Our Portrait Gallery - No. LXIX. The Right Hon. Joseph Napier, LL.D, Q.C., M.P. for the University of Dublin. 5. The Indian Archipelago. 6. Spring-Time Flowers. 7. To the Bay of Dublin. By Denis Florence M'Carthy. 8. Sir Jasper Carew, Knight. Chapters XVI., XVII. 9. More Improvements in the Text of Shakespeare. 10. Tom Cluggin's Two Antipathies. 11. Burke's Fame and Cobden's Folly. Dublin: JAMES McGLASHAN, 50, Upper Sackville-street, Wm. S. Orr and Co, 2. Amen-corner, London, and Liverpool, JOHN MENZIES, Edinburgh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUGARS, &C. AT WHOLESALE PRICES. ----- SUGARS, TEAS, WINES, WHISKEYS (in the Custom House Stores or duty paid), Guinness' XX Porter, Bass and Co's Bitter, Drogheda, and Alloa Ales in Bottle, all of the best qualities that can be procured supplied by FRANCIS JOHNSON, & DO. AT WHOLESALE PRICES, whereby a large saving is effected on the usual prices charged. Samples and full information on application, personally, or by letter to FRANCIS JOHNSON, & CO. WHOLESALE TEA, WINE, AND SPIRIT DEALERS, 49, WILLIAM STREET, DUBLIN. Orders must be accompanied with a remittance. ==================================================== County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project at