IRL-CAVAN-L Archives

From: "Carol Granville" <>
Subject: CAVAN OBSERVER - FEBRUARY 2, 1861
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:59:32 -0400

CAVAN OBSERVER FEBRUARY 2, 1861

LOCAL NEWS

CAVAN PETTY SESSIONS--Monday
(Before W. BABINGTON, Esq., J.P.)

Sub-Constable CONNELL charged James DILLON and Bernard CORRIGAN with having being drunk in the public street of Ballyhaise on the night of the 24th January, and stated that, as far as he knew, neither of the defendants had been charged with a similar offence before. DILLON's excuse was that he had been at a funeral on the day in question, and being a "friend of the corpse," "of course he took a glass more than he was able to bear coming home." CORRIGAN made no defence. They were allowed to depart on paying the costs.

Feargus LEE v. John SMITH

This was a singular case. The defendant is an elderly man, a farmer, residing at Mullymagavan, within a short distance from complainant, who swore informations against him for stealing a shoe brush, his property, on Saturday, the 12th of January. The police, under Sergeant James M'CARTHY, of Stradone, went to Smith's house, after the informations were sworn, and found only his wife there, whom they arrested, and brought before R. BURROWES, Esq., J.P., D.L., but SMITH, on returning from market, entered into bail, and his wife was discharged. According to LEE's statement he had sold his home and land and was removing his furniture when several articles--a bedstead, six hens, and the brush--were stolen from him, as, he alleged, he believes, by defendant; but the brush was the only article found in defendant's house, and he swore positively that that brush, which he identified, was in his own possession on the 12th January. Defendant and his family used to assist him in remo!
ving his furniture, and frequently visited at his house. Defendant's son, an intelligent-looking young lad, swore that a couple of days before Christmas last his mother sent him to LEE's house, to borrow the brush, for the purpose of brushing her mantle, as she was going to the fair of Ballyjamesduff, and that LEE's daughter lent him the brush. LEE was not in the house at the time, but his wife was, and she sent her daughter back with him for some blacking, to polish her shoes. LEE's daughter went with him and polished her mother's shoes at his (SMITH's) house, but forgot the brush after her and it remained there until taken by the police. LEE's wife was not in Court, but was sent for and, after a considerable time, she made her appearance, and on being sworn, denied that the brush had been lent to SMITH, that he had ever asked for the loan of it, or that she had sent her shoes to be polished at his father's house. SMITH handed up an excellent character given of his wif!
e by the Protestant Vicar and Roman Catholic clergyman of his parish, and said he could obtain similar testimonies of his own good character. In reply to the Court, LEE said he had never any quarrel with SMITH: but the latter detailed some circumstances which, if true, would show that SMITH fancied to he had a cause of quarrel with him. Finally the Court decided to postpone the case for the production of additional evidence on either side, as the evidence given was contradictory.

Bernard REILLY v. Alexander LAIRD

The summons was brought against defendant for "that he, on the 21st of January, did erect and keep a certain show on the public street of Cavan, to the annoyance of complainant, and contrary to the statute." Complainant's daughter, it appears, has been lying ill for some time past, and when defendant was about to erect his booth opposite complainant's door, at the end of the Main-street, he begged him to desist, as it would endanger his daughter's life to have a show booth so near the house, but defendant refused, and the booth was erected. Complainant then obtained a summons against defendant, and the case was to be tried at a special Petty Sessions on the following day. Both parties attended at the Court-house, but as only one magistrate (Mr. BABINGTON) was present, the case was not gone into. Complainant swore that his daughter has got worse since the erection of the booth, and complains that "that the music is ringing in her head," and a certificate was produced from!
Dr. MALCOMSON to the effect that "the noise usually attendant on a public show" would be dangerous to the health of REILLY's daughter. Mr. SMITH, Mr. KING, and other ratepayers of the neighbourhood deposed that the show was a nuisance to them. The minute book of the Town Commissioners was produced, and it appeared that on the petition of the ratepayers of that portion of the town it was decided that no show booths should be allowed there in future, but that they should be erected at a certain portion of the Farnham-road, "until a more suitable site can be provided"; and the Town Sergeant stated that he warned defendant not to erect his booth where he did, and offered to show him the place appointed by the Commissioners for that purpose. Defendant pleaded that he hired and payed rent for the ground occupied by his booth to a woman who claimed it as hers, and produced his agreement; and he also contended that the place did not form a portion of the public street as it had!
been enclosed as an egg market.....His Worship then read the 72nd section of 17th and 18th Victoria, defining what shall be legally considered a street and specifying the penalty to which the defendant had left himself liable. Complainant said he had no wish to press for a fine; all he wanted was to have the booth removed. Defendant, after considerable hesitation, agreed to remove his booth (which he has since done, to Church-lane), and the case was accordingly nilled--defendant paying the costs.

The Court then rose.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The inquest on the body found at Kilmore last week will, we understand, be resumed on Monday next, when PAYNE's mother (now in Dublin) is expected to be present.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE MONAGHAN DOUBLE MURDER

The adjourned inquest on the murder of the brothers SHAW was resumed on Friday, the 25th ult., before Charles WADDELL, Esq., coroner. Henry G. JOHNSTON, Esq., with John CUNNINGHAM, Esq., the local justices, together with Mr. SINGLETON, R.M., and Charles M'KELVEY, Esq., S.I., attended. Mr. SINGLETON on the part of the Crown, stated to the coroner that there was no more evidence to lay before them. Mr. M'KELVEY and the police under his command had been most indefatigable in hunting up every report to procure what evidence they could, and he had now to say that, so far, he had no more evidence to lay before the jury.--The coroner then read over the entire evidence to the jury, who, after some deliberation came to the following verdict:--

"That James and Robert SHAW came to their death by gun-shot wounds, and that there was not sufficient evidence before them to say by whom these gun-shot wounds had been inflicted."

Mr. T. E. WRIGHT, solicitor, applied that the prisoners--SHAW, M'NIECE, and JACKSON--be discharged.--As to Jackson, he had, if the jury wished, complete evidence to show that he was in the house of his mistress on the night the SHAWs were murdered. The prisoners were consequently discharged.

A reward of 100l. has been offered for such information as will lead to the conviction of the perpetrator of the murder.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

County Cavan Newspaper Transcription Project

This thread:

• CAVAN OBSERVER - FEBRUARY 2, 1861 by "Carol Granville" <>