News transcripts - James Jackson Marshall & Anne Hovenden 

Please note that this page includes transcripts not only from contempoary newspapers but also from other documents.

Source: Dublin Monitor, 20 December 1838. "Lewis's Topographical Dictionary—Meeting of the Subscribers," involving [William] Dunn and [James Jackson] Marshall, attorneys. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2017-01-01, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

Irish Intelligence.
Lewis's Topographical Dictionary——Meeting of the Subscribers.
(abridged from the Limerick Standard.)
  Pursuant to advertisement, a numerous meeting of the subscribers in this city and district to Lewis's Topographical Dictionary, was held at two o'clock on Saturday last at the St. Michael's parish office, Upper Cecil-street, for the purpose of determining on the course to be adopted with reference to the payment for the work.
  The Mayor took the chair; immediately after which, his worship commenced the proceedings by stating, that he had been served with a letter by the law agents of the publishers, in which he was threatened to be served with a capias, or, in other words, he believed he was right in saying, a latitat (hear, and laughter) if he did not forthwith pay the price of the copy of the dictionary and atlas which he received.
  Mr. William Worrall (Attorney) observed that the letter to which the Mayor referred, and of which copies had been extensively distributed amongst the subscribers was dated, "26, Lower Gloucester-street, Dublin," and signed, "Dunn and Marshall." Its object was two-fold——first, by appointing law agents in Ireland to obviate the necessity on the part of publishers, who resided in London, to give security, in case of defence being taken to any action they might commence, and which might be followed by the issuing of executions; and, in the next place, to throw out a gentle feeler to the subscribers, and to convey to them a very significant hint that if they did not immediately pay, they would be handed over to the Dublin law agents. At the former meetings on the subject which had been held in Limerick, resolutions had been come to that the attempts then, as now, making to compel payment, ought to be resisted, the work having been imperfect; and it was for the present meeting to say whether they would come to a similar determination or not (hear).
  Arthur Evans, Esq., said he had been served with one of the threatening letters, but his firm intention was, not to pay (hear, hear). He believed that the publishers went to expense——it might be enormous expense——and trouble in bringing out the work, and that they did all this on the faith of the subscription, but it was their business to have it as accurate as possible before they sent it forth (hear).
  Mr. Thomas E. Carte (Attorney) observed that the agent they sent to Limerick to collect the statistical and other details for it amused himself the whole time he was here, eating oysters and drinking whiskey (laughter).
  Mr. Worrall said that the agent who visited his house gave him a map of Limerick and the district to look over and to correct, as he had heard that he (Mr. W.) was somewhat conversant with the position of the several places in this locality. It being a matter of entertainment he looked it over for him, and made fifteen corrections in it with red ink. On returning it to him, the agent expressed his thankfulness——assured him all the corrections marked would be made. On looking over the published copy, great was his surprise, at finding it in the very same state it was before he corrected it. The parish of St. Michael's was there placed on the North Stand, (hear and laughter), and the name of Limerick was also placed on the North Strand (hear and laughter). In his opinion, it came now to this:——would the subscribers then present pay or resist (unanimous cries of "resist"). If they resisted, the publishers would never proceed further (hear, hear).
  Mr. Evans said that it set down Rathkeale——the principal town of the county——as being "in the province of Leinster." (hear, hear, and laughter). It also stated that the north and south liberties of Limerick were divided by the Shannon. So far, that was true; but then it said, that the north liberties extended five miles, whereas they only extended one mile at the very farthest. It again said that the north liberties contained 1,400 acres while it was a well-ascertained fact, that four or five miles of ground must, of necessity, contain 14,000 acres (hear). Again, it described the island of Scattery as being "sixty miles from Limerick, and at the mouth of the Shannon," while every one present knew that Scattery was twenty miles from the mouth of the Shannon——so that it was calculated to lead even seafaring men astray (hear).
  A Voice——It's nothing but a "comedy of errors" (great laughter).
  Mr. Worrall said he had been informed by a gentleman that the price was not specified when he subscribed his name, but that afterwards, when he came to look at the document, he found the price stuck in (cries of "shame").
  Fitzgerald Massy, Esq., said that all those statements were good in their way, but that in his opinion the great question was, what ought the subscribers now to do, and how could they resist the attempts of the publishers?
  Mr. Worrall said the moment the publishers went into any court against any one subscriber, that that moment they would be stopped from proceeding against any of the rest, if he appealed. In fact, he (Mr. W.) had not the slightest doubt on his mind but that if any one subscriber went to law with them, it would be sufficient to enable the court to stop their actions against any and all the others, and say to them, "go and try the question with this one man."
  Mr. O'Grady thought they ought instantly to enter into a subscription to support any one of the subscribers who would volunteer to try the case with them (hear).
  After some further discussion,
  Mr. O'Grady inquired whether all present would subscribe to hear Mr. Worrall harmless through the proceeding? (Unanimous cries of "yes, willingly.")
  Mr. Potter observed that he would enter his own name down for one guinea (cheers). Mr. Potter inquired how many subscribers to the work there were in Limerick?
  Mr. Worrall replied, upwards of one hundred.
  Mr. Potter said, that if the whole number subscribed a guinea each, 100 guineas would be collected——a sum of money amply sufficient to indemnify Mr. Worrall in any defence he might take to their action.
  Mr. Worral expressed his firm determination to take defence, and said that though the publishers might have a colourable office in Dublin, he would endeavour to have them sworn that they possessed sufficient property in Ireland, in case of an execution issuing.
  Mr. O'Grady said he was informed they were out at that very moment serving latitats as fast as they could.
  Richard Peppard, Esq., said there was more information in
Pigot's Directory, the cost price of which was only 30s., than in all the Topographical Dictionary contained. He (Mr. P.) could not forbear expressing his astonishment at the gentlemen about him, who were all remarkable for shrewdness and clearness of head, subscribing to a work they never saw (general cries of "hear, hear," and "'tis very true").
  Alderman Jervis suggested the propriety of appointing a committee to discover and report on as many errors as they found it to contain (hear).
  Mr. Worrall was of opinion that it would be better to leave it open to all the subscribers in the city and district to perform that duty (hear, hear).
  The Rev. Mr. Malone, P.P. of Cratloe, said that it contained one very glaring mis-statement with respect to the part of the country in which he resided, and with which he was most familiar (hear). It said that "Bunratty was a market-place attached to the town of Meelick" (loud cries of hear, followed by roars of laughter).
  A Voice——That certainly was a most damning error.
  Mr. Carte observed that the Rev. Mr. Coll, at a former meeting, said that it was full of inaccuracies in its account of Newcastle, and that though he (Mr. Coll) had made corrections in proof sheets, yet that they had never been attended to by the publishers (hear).
  Mr. Worrall mentioned that he had sent the publishers copies of the resolutions to which they had come at former meetings, and that the latter wrote an epistle in reply, which every gentleman who had seen it declared was a most audacious production.
  The Chairman——In fact it made us all out a parcel of blackguards (loud and indignant cries of "hear, hear," and "shame").
  Mr. Worrall continued to say that it was a most impudent letter, the publishers having expressed in it their utter condemnation upon the proceedings of the meetings, and their unfeigned contempt for their Limerick subscribers (renewed cries of "shame").
  Resolutions were then carried, expressing the determination of the subscribers to resist payment for the work, to take the advice of counsel on the subject, and to lay a copy of the resolutions before the proprietors of the Dictionary.

Source: Northern Standard, 4 April 1840. Attornies Dunn and [James Jackson] Marshall, acting for Lewis' Topographical Dictionary. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2017-01-01, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

  Forty-five declarations were filed by the Attornies Dunn and Marshall for Lewis' Topographical Dictionary, within this fortnight, and it is supposed that many are filed against persons wholly ignorant of it.

Source: Clare Journal, and Ennis Advertiser, 29 July 1841. Coyne and Purdy v. James J. Marshall, Attorney. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2016-12-05, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

  At Wicklow assizes was tried the remarkable case Coyne and Purdy v. James J. Marshall, Attorney, of the firm of Dunn and Marshall, celebrated for their numerous actions for Lewis’ Topographical Dictionary. The action was for an acceptance of Marshall’s of £50, which he resisted on the ground of alleged forgery. A multitude of witnesses were examined on each side as to the fact of handwriting and adoption of the bill. The evidence of handwriting was contradictory, but the adoption of the bill was precise, and the Jury found against Marshall.——It was rumoured in Court that numerous other actions were contemplated, if the one had succeeded. Mr. Brewster, Q.C., made a powerful speech to evidence for the plaintiff, and was very severe upon defendant’s Attorneys. The trial excited much interest.

Source: Cork Examiner, 2 February 1842 (pg. 3). "Court of Exchequer...Lewis and Co. v. Rev. Patrick O'Connor, P.P.," Messrs. Dunn and Marshall, agent for plaintiffs. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2017-01-01, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

Court of Exchequer——Monday.
Lewis and Co. v. Rev. Patrick O'Connor, P.P.
  Mr. Baker, with whom was Mr. B. Fitzpatrick, moved on the part of the defendant in this case, the Rev. Patrick O'Connor, P.P., of Peter's-well, near Gort, to set aside a parliamentary appearance and subsequent proceedings had against him by the authors of Lewis's Dictionary.
  Counsel moved on the grounds of non-service and held voluminous affidavits to the effect that defendant had never been served with any original process or copies.
  After some observations from Mr. Butt on the other side, the court, [sic] granted a conditional order.
  Agent for plaintiffs, Messrs. Dunn and Marshall, for defendant, Mr. Thomas Fitzpatrick.

Source: Irish Equity Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery, the Rolls Court, and the Equity Exchequer, During the Years 1845 and 1846. Vol. VIII (pp. 670-4). “Woodroofe, petitioner, v. Marshall, respondent.” Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1846. Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

Cases in Equity.
Woodroofe, Petitioner; Marshall, Respondent.
  Jan. 19. The wife’s estate was upon her marriage conveyed to trustees to the use of the husband until bankruptcy, insolvency, or until an elegit should issue against the lands on foot of any judgment against the husband, and from the happening of any of these events then to the use of the wife for her sole and separate use. Held, that a judgment creditor of the husband could not appoint a receiver over the lands.

Statement.
  In this case the petitioner, on the 28th of November 1845, had obtained a conditional order for a receiver over the lands of Ballyckmoyler under the Judgment Acts, on foot of two judgments obtained by him against the respondent in Trinity Term 1845.
  By marriage settlement, bearing date the 22nd June 1845 [s/b 1835], Anne Gregory, then a widow, but now the wife of the respondent, conveyed the lands of Ballyckmoyler and Ballylehane, of which she was against then seised, to Joseph Marshall and Thomas Hovenden, and their heirs, to the use of the said Anne until the marriage, and after the marriage to Cornelius Marshall and William Dunne, and the survivors of them, and the executors and administrators and assigns of the survivor for the term of 500 years, and subject thereto to the use of the respondent and his assigns during his life, or until he should commit an act of bankruptcy whereon a commission should issue, or he should be found or declared a bankrupt, or until he should make any composition with his creditors for the payment of his debts, although a commission of bankruptcy should not have issued against him; or until he should make any assignment of his effects for the benefit of his creditors; or until he should become insolvent, or take the benefits of any Acts made, or to be made, for the relief of insolvent debtors; or until any elegit should issue against said lands and premises, or that same should be granted in custodiam upon foot, or for satisfaction or discharge of any judgment debt or other debt due or thereafter to grow due by the said respondent; and in the meantime during the lifetime of the said respondent, after the determination by forfeiture or otherwise of the said estate for his life, so limited to him as aforesaid, to the use of Thomas Hovenden and the Rev. Joseph Marshall, and their heirs, during the lifetime of the said respondent, to preserve contingent remainders, but in the meantime until any of the events aforesaid should happen, to permit the said James J. Marshall to take the rents and profits of the said lands and premises; and from and immediately after the death of the said James J. Marshall, or his committing any act of bankruptcy whereon a commission should issue, or his being found a bankrupt, or making such composition or assignment as aforesaid; or being insolvent, or taking the benefit of any Act in force for the relief of insolvent debtors; or until such elegit should be issued, or custodiam be granted as aforesaid, to the use of the said Anne Gregory, if she should be then living, and her assigns, for and during the time of her natural life, without impeachment of waste, to her separate use, free from his debts, control or interference, if he should be then living; and that the receipt of the said Anne Gregory should be a sufficient discharge for the rents of said lands, or other monies payable under said limitation. On the 11th of December 1845, the respondent served notice of motion to show cause; and on the 10th of January 1846, a notice was served on the part of the trustees of Mrs. Marshall, that, instead of the motion on behalf of the respondent, the trustees would move to show cause against the appointment of the receiver; which motion now came on.

Argument.
  Mr. Butt, for the trustees of the settlement.
  Mr. Benjamin Stephens, for the petitioner.
  There is a preliminary objection to the Court entertaining this motion on behalf of the trustees. The original notice of motion to show cause by the respondent was served within the ten days, and is now withdrawn; but the notice on which the present motion is founded was not served until after the expiration of that time, and is therefore too late, and the petitioner is now entitled to make the order absolute.

Master Of The Rolls.——I will hear any party who comes in to show cause at any time before the order is made.

Mr. Butt.
  The petitioner is not entitled to have a receiver over this property under the Judgment Acts. By the 31st section of the 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 55, the judgment creditor is entitled to have a receiver over all lands which he would be entitled to have extended or appraised under a writ of elegit. Under the limitations of the marriage settlement, the lands could not be extended under an elegit against the respondent, for the very act of issuing the elegit would determine the respondent's estate: it follows, therefore, that if the lands could not be extended under an elegit against him, a receiver under the Act could not be put over them by his creditor. The property settled belonged to the wife; it may be admitted that if the husband settled his own property, subject to such limitations, they would be void against his creditors; but the case is different where the estate belonged to the wife, for there the limitations over to the wife will be good against his creditors: Ex parte Cooke (a); Lockyer v. Savage (6); The King v. Topping (c). The 21st section of the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, does not give the remedy in any cases except those mentioned in the former Act. The proceedings under these statutes in appointing a receiver, is analogous to an equitable execution. The plain intention of the limitations in the settlement was to determine the husband's life estate in the event of his creditors attaching it, and every possible case then in existence was provided against for the protection of the wife; but the case of a receiver under those Acts could not then have been anticipated.
  Even supposing this proceeding does not work a forfeiture or determination of the husband's life estate, it would be inequitable in this Court to allow the petitioner to take advantage of those Acts instead of having recourse to his legal execution. If the Court refuse now to interpose in his favour, and force him to issue his elegit, his so doing would at once work a forfeiture.

Mr. Pigot, for the petitioner.
  The objection now raised cannot prevail, unless the Court is prepared either to import into the limitations of the settlement terms which they do not contain, or to give to the statute a construction which the words of it do not warrant. The settlement does not provide for any event except those specifically stated, and amongst them is not the case of the appointment of a receiver; and the Court will not, of course, extend this protection, to the prejudice of the rights of creditors, further than it is constrained to do. The proceeding here is not founded on an elegit sued out; on the contrary, it assumes that an elegit will not be sued out, but that a remedy different from the elegit will be pursued. The only question for the Court is, has any event now happened which has determined the estate of the respondent? If not, the petitioner is entitled to have a receiver; but it is premature to raise the objection, that the order for a receiver may subsequently become inoperative. Besides, if such an objection were raised against the elegit in a Court of Law, it could not be entertained; and, therefore, having the right to sue out the elegit, which is all the Act requires, he is entitled to make the order absolute.

Mr. Benjamin Stephens, same side.
  There can be no doubt that a wife may settle her property so as to protect it from her husband's creditors, but that must be done in a legal and proper manner, which is not the case here. The trustees are mere releasees to uses. On the happening of any of the events enumerated, the use which was executed in the husband is made to shift, not to new trustees or back to the old, but to the wife sole and independent of her husband. This, as a legal estate, must be either void or be executed again in the husband, as a married woman cannot have seisin; strictly speaking, it ought to be considered void, as in case of uses the intention must be strictly followed: 1 Rolls Abr. 91, 791; 13 Coke, 55, 56; and where one use is expressed, another use cannot be averred or implied: Dillon v. Fruin (a); and this intention, which is the principal foundation of the creation of uses, must not be contrary to the rules of common law: Hare v. Dix(b); Buckley v. Simmons (c). But seisin in a married woman without her husband cannot exist at common law: Harton v. Harton (d); Hawkins v. Luscomb (e). Supposing the use shifted to the husband, by issuing the elegit it is clear the creditor could have extended that estate at law, and could thus have acquired a legal estate and become purchaser for value without notice; in which case would the wife, as against him, have any equity to call on this Court to extend the trust in her favour? It is enough, on this motion, to argue that such an equity would be any thing but clear: Whitworth v. Gaugain (f). Being, therefore, entitled at law to extend the husband's estate, original or acquired, we ought to have a receiver, which is a statutable right, and let a bill decide whether in such case the husband would be a bare trustee for his wife so as to disturb our legal possession.

Judgment.
The Master Of The Rolls.
  In this case the petitioner has obtained an order for a receiver under the Judgment Acts, on foot of two judgments recovered against the defendant. Cause is now shown against that order by the trustees of the marriage settlement of the wife of the respondent. The lands over which the receiver is now sought to be appointed were the estate of the lady, and, on her marriage with the respondent in 1835, they were conveyed by her to re-lessees to the use of the husband for his life, or until he shall become bankrupt or insolvent, or compound with his creditors; or until any elegit should issue against the lands on foot of any judgment against him; that is to say, the duration of his estate was limited to his life, liable, however, to be abridged and determined by the happening of any of these events. I may observe, that the settlement provides, that from the happening of the bankruptcy or other events mentioned, or until such elegit should issue, the lands were to be held to the use of Mrs. Marshall; now the word "until" is manifestly a clerical error, but it does not, in my mind, affect the limitation over, as the Court will reject it as being either insensate and inconsistent with the preceding part of the deed, or as surplusage. I therefore, take it as unquestionable, that on the issuing of the elegit the estate of the husband would determine and that of the wife commence. None of the events mentioned in the settlement have occurred; and the respondent is still seized of an estate for life in the lands, and the question now is, can the Court grant a receiver over them on a judgment against the husband?

  It has not been argued, nor indeed could it have been argued, that the presenting of a petition under the Judgment Acts is equivalent to the issuing of an elegit so as to defeat and determine the husband's interest. But what is the object of these Acts? It is to enable a judgment creditor to get a receiver over lands, of which, under an elegit, he could obtain possession, for the payment of his demand; and I am, therefore, now bound to consider whether the creditor could extend these lands at law. It is very plain that he could not; for, at the moment the elegit should issue, the estate of the debtor would determine, and the Sheriff could not return that he had extended or appraised the lands. Look to the words of the statute itself; the 31st section enacts, that the judgment creditor may "apply by petition for an order that a receiver may be appointed of the rents and profits of the lands, tenements or hereditaments which he would be entitled to have extended or appraised under a writ of elegit." Now, there is, ex concessis, no estate which could be extended or appraised under a writ of elegit, and which could, therefore, be reached by a receiver under the Act; for as I said before, the very issuing of the elegit would have extinguished the estate of the husband and left nothing to extend. I must, for these reasons, allow the cause shown and refuse the application for a receiver, but I shall not, under the circumstances, give any costs.

Source: Irish Equity Reports Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery, the Rolls Court, and the Equity Exchequer, during the Years 1847 and 1848. Vol. X (pp. 429-31). “Hayes v. Marshall,” 4 March 1847. Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1847. Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

Cases in Equity.
Hayes v. Marshall.
1847. Rolls.

March 4.
  Real property of the wife was on the marriage conveyed to trustees to the use of the husband for life, or until he should commit an act of bankruptcy, or until he should make a composition with his creditors, or should make any assignment of his effects for the benefit of his creditors, or until he should become insolvent, or take the benefit of any Act for the relief of insolvent debtors, or until an eligit should issue against the lands; and after the husband’s death, or the happening of any of those events, to the separate use of the wife. The husband assigned all his real and personal estate to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors. On a bill filed by a judgment creditor of the husband, the Court refused to appoint a receiver, his life estate having determined by the assignment.

Statement.
  The bill in this cause was filed by Richard Patrick Hayes, administrator of Patrick Hayes deceased, to raise the amount of a judgment obtained by the latter in Trinity Term 1845. It prayed that the judgment might be declared a charge on the life estate and all other the interest of James Jackson Marshall in the lands of Ballyackmoyler and Ballynahane, an account of the sum due, and a receiver.
  The bill stated, that in and previous to 1835 Anne Gregory was seised in fee of the said lands; and by the settlement executed on her marriage with the defendant James Jackson Marshall, and bearing date the 22nd of June 1835, she settled and assured the lands to the use of James Jackson Marshall for life, with divers remainders over, and an ultimate remainder in fee to the survivor of them the said James Jackson Marshall and Anne Gregory, in case there should be no issue of the marriage; that at the time of the obtaining of the judgment, James Jackson Marshall was entitled to a life estate in possession in said lands, and also a remainder in fee in the same, in the event of his surviving the said Anne Gregory without issue of the marriage. That the marriage took place shortly after the execution of the settlement, and that there never had been any issue of the marriage. The bill also stated, that by the said settlement, a term of five hundred years, to commence from the solemnization of the marriage, was limited to the defendants the Rev. Cornelius Marshall and William Dunne, upon trust to raise by sale or mortgage a sum of £5000, when they should be required to do so by the said J.J. Marshall and Anne Gregory; but that the power of raising the money had never been exercised.
  The Rev. Cornelius Marshall, by his answer disclaimed any interest in the lands under the settlement, but claimed an interest in the lands of Ballynahane, by virtue of two mortgages of the 16th of August 1787, and the 19th of December 1789, and also as assignee of a judgment of Trinity Term 1827.
  The answer of J.J. Marshall fully set forth the settlement of the 22nd of June 1835, by which it appeared that the lands had been conveyed to trustees to the use of Anne Gregory and her heirs until the marriage, and after the marriage to the use of trustees for five hundred years, and subject thereto to the use of J.J. Marshall for life, or until he should commit an act of bankruptcy whereon a commission should issue, or he should be found or declared a bankrupt within the meaning of any statutes made or to be made in relation to bankrupts, traders or others, or until he should make any composition with his creditors for the payment of his debts, although a commission of bankruptcy should not have issued against him; or until he should make an assignment of his effects for the benefit of his creditors; or until he should become insolvent, or take the benefit of any Acts made, or to be made for the relief of insolvent debtors; or until any elegit should issue against said lands and premises, or same should be granted in custodiam upon foot, or for satisfaction or discharge, of any judgment debt or other debt due or thereafter to grow due by him; and in the meantime during the lifetime of the said J.J. Marshall, after the determination by forfeiture or otherwise of the said estate for his life, so limited to him as aforesaid, to the use of the said trustees to preserve the contingent uses and estates thereinafter limited from being destroyed, but in the meantime, until any of the events aforesaid should happen, to permit the said J.J. Marshall, to take the rents and profits of the said lands and premises; and from and immediately after the death of the said James J. Marshall or his committing any act of bankruptcy whereon a commission should issue, or his being found a bankrupt, or making such composition or assignment as aforesaid; or being insolvent or taking the benefit of any Act in force for the relief of insolvent debtors; or until such elegit should be issued or custodiam be granted as aforesaid, to the use of the said Anne Gregory if she should then be living, and her assigns, for and during the term of her natural life, without impeachment of waste, to her separate use, free from his debts, control or interference, if he should be then living, and that the receipt of the said Anne Gregory should be a sufficient discharge for the rents of said lands, or other monies payable under said limitation.
  The answer then stated, that J.J. Marshall being unable to pay his debts, and being apprehensive of arrest, as many writs of fieri facias and capias ad satisfaciendum had been sued out against him, by indenture bearing date the 3rd day of March 1847, assigned all his real and personal estate, and all his goods, chattels, securities for money, debts due to him, &c., to William Hovenden, his executors, &c., upon trust to sell the said real and personal estate, &c., and to call in the said debts, and to divide the produce thereof among the creditors of the said J.J. Marshall.
  The answer then submitted to the Court as matter of law, whether or not he had forfeited his life estate under the settlement of the 22nd of June 1845, by the said indenture of the 3rd of March 1847.

Argument.
  Mr. Hughes moved for a receiver.
  Mr. Brewster and Mr. F.W. Walsh contended that the motion ought to be refused, inasmuch as the bill must be dismissed at the hearing on two grounds; first, that by the deed of the 3rd of March 1847, the defendant J.J. Marshall had forfeited his life estate; secondly, that the bill was filed by a judgment creditor in the lifetime of the conusor, who had no charge on the estate, because there was a mortgagee prior to the 1st of November 1840: 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. 19; Kirwan v. Lord Portarlington (a).

Mr. Norman replied.
  Woodruffe v. Marshall (b), in which a receiver had been refused on the petition of a judgment creditor on the life estate, was referred to on the motion.

Judgment.
  The Master of the Rolls.
  The property settled in this case was the wife’s property. It has been decided that a settlement of property by a trader to himself until he becomes a bankrupt, and then over to his wife or children, is void, so far as it relates to the property of the husband; but the wife's property may be so settled. No question however arises in this case upon the Bankrupt Laws. The settlement was valid, and I think the estate of the husband has determined, and that the motion for the receiver cannot be sustained.

Source: Westmeath Independent, 24 May 1851. "Capture of a Runaway Steward," at the suit of James Jackson Marshall, Esq., of Herondale, Queen's county. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2017-01-01, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

  Capture of a Runaway Steward——Caution to Employers.——On the 9th instant a man, who gave his name as James Lawlor, was arrested by the constabulary at Cork, under suspicious circumstances, he having offered £6 for his passage to America, whereas £3 16s was the regular fare. After his arrest he was desired to write his name, when, appearing to forget himself, he wrote, "James Hayden," which appears to be his true one, as, on being searched[,] a decree and some other notices were found on his person, at the suit of James Jackson Marshall, Esq., of Herondale, Queen's County, and directed to "Jas. Hayden, bailiff." He had also £9 in notes. He was committed for further examination, and the above particulars communicated to Sub-Inspector Watkins at Carlow, who, on inquiry, found that Hayden was employed to sell two cows for Mr. Marshall, on the 5th instant, at the fair of Carlow, and that he absconded with the amount. Hayden is a man of fifty years of age, and left a wife and three children behind him at Ballylinan. An order for his transmission to Maryboro' gaol has been forwarded to the authorities at Cork.

Source: Cork Constitution, 10 February 1852. "Lewis's Topographical Dictionary: Elliot v. Lewis," with reference to [William] Dunne and [James Jackson] Marshall, solicitors. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2017-01-01, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

Nisi Prius Sittings.——Dublin, Friday.
Lewis's Topographical Dictionary.
Elliot v. Lewis.
  This was an action of assumpsit brought by Mr. James Elliot, a respectable solicitor, residing in this city, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Samuel Lewis, the surviving partner of the firm of Lewis and Pringle, the proprietors and publishers of the celebrated Topographical Dictionary of Ireland, which was made so very notorious a few years back. Damages were laid at £10,000, and the defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations.
  It appeared that some time before the year 1840 the defendant and his late partner having undertaken the publication of the work in question, which cost upwards of £20,000 to publish, procured subscribers to it to the extent of £70,000——so that if those subscribers had paid for the Dictionary, Messrs. Lewis and Pringle would have realized about £50,000 by the transaction. The subscribers, however, refused to pay for the work, denying their liability; the publishers instituted proceedings against some of the defaulters, and for that purpose they retained Messrs. Dunne and Marshall, solicitors, of Molesworth street, in this city, to act as their attorneys, and these gentlemen issued upwards of 4,000 writs, and filed an equal number of declarations. The consequence was, a great deal of money was paid up, but in many cases the defendants would not pay, and at the end of some time they threatened to have judgment marked as in case of a nonsuit, if the plaintiffs did not go on. This state of affairs rather frightened Messrs. Lewis and Pringle, and they came to Ireland when they found themselves in a very awkward position of not being able to go on, unless they were prepared to give security for costs, as they resided out of the jurisdiction, which they could not possibly do in such a number of actions. To remove this difficulty they opened an establishment in Westmoreland-street, and in that way avoided giving security; and on the same occasion they wished to make some change as to their solicitors, and accordingly they applied to Messrs. Dunne and Marshal [sic] for their costs when they found, to their surprise, that they amounted to about £30,000, or £7 10s. for the preliminary proceedings in each of the four thousand actions. A compromise was proposed, and it was finally arranged that Messrs. Dunne and Marshal should get a sum of £3,000, and continue to act as their solicitors, upon certain terms set out in an agreement, dated in 1841, to which the plaintiff, Elliot, and a Mr. Crawford, were appointed trustees. Proceedings were carried on, or compromised, as advisable; and so matters remained up to 1844, when a new agreement was made, and Messrs. Dunne and Marshal ceased to be the solicitors, and Mr. Elliot, who resigned the trusteeship, was appointed in their room. On the occasion of the plaintiff's appointment, a special arrangement was entered into with him by the defendant and Mr. Pringle, by which, as he alleged, he was to receive and keep the costs in all cases in which he succeeded——to get only costs out of pocket in all unsuccessful cases, the fault of non-success to be adjudicated by Messrs. Thomas O'Hagan, Q.C., and Henry Crawford, with Mr. Butt, Q.C., as umpire between the plaintiff and his clients. Upon foot of this agreement the action was brought, and Mr. Elliott [sic] contended that there was a sum of about £1,100 due to him, in accordance with the award of those arbitrators.
  On the part of the defendant it was relied on that the final award was not binding, and irregular, and that Mr. Lewis was entitled to credits which would extinguish the plaintiff's demand.
  The further hearing of the case was adjourned to this day, when the defence will be gone into.
Saturday.
  This case was resumed at the sitting of the court.
  Mr. Brewster, Q.C., on the part of the defendant, contended that the final award was not binding, and irregular, and that Mr. Lewis was entitled to credits which would extinguish the plaintiff's demand altogether. He also referred at length to the wording of the several agreements entered into between the parties, and submitted that the plaintiff should be nonsuited as he had not made out a case which would justify a jury in finding a verdict in his favour.
  Counsel having been heard on the other side,
  The Chief Justice said he was of opinion, that there was no case to go to the jury; accordingly he directed a nonsuit.

Source: Carlow Post, 27 December 1856. "Ballickmoyler Petty Sessions," James Jackson Marshall, Esq. v. William Farrell et al. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2017-01-03, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

Ballickmoyler Petty Sessions.
Wednesday, Dec. 24.
  Magistrates present——William Cope Cooper, Esq., Chairman; James Fitzmaurice, William R. Fitzmaurice, and Joseph Fishbourne, Esqrs.
  The only case of interest was that of the Queen, by James Jackson Marshall, Esq., v. William Farrell, Robert Doyle, John Knowles, and Nicholas Tierney, who were charged with having wilfully set fire to a quantity of flax, the property of Mr. Marshall, on the night of the 4th inst.
  Mr. Malcomson appeared for the prosecutor; Mr. J.B. Mulhall for the accused.
  Mr. Mulhall made a preliminary objection, that there was no case before the Bench. The summons stated the "Queen" to be the complainant and "unknown" defendant.——The summons should state at whose instance the complaint was made, and should name some person as defendant. He contended the proceedings were irregular and informal, and that the complainant should not be at liberty to go there and be trying to fish out a case, and afterwards prosecute. He called on the magistrates not to entertain the case.
  Mr. Malcomson contended that the summons could be amended if necessary, but that no defendant could be named until they heard the evidence, as the complainant did not yet know who to charge; he also contended that this was merely a preliminary investigation to enable the magistrates to see if they were justified in taking informations.
  The Bench said it was at their own suggestion and that of the Sub-Inspector the investigation was originated; and as the parties charged were before them in court, they thought they had full jurisdiction to go into the matter.
  Mr. Malcomson then examined Miss Hovenden, Mr. Sub-Inspector Gibbons, and several other witnesses, who were severally cross-examined by Mr. Mulhall, at the conclusion of which——
  The Bench unanimously held there was not sufficient evidence to justify them in taking informations against any of the parties, and dismissed the summons.
  Mr. Mulhall applied for costs, but the Bench did not think it a case for costs.

Source: The Irish Jurist. Vol. IX.—Reports. (Vol. II, new series; pg. 378). “Court of Exchequer,...Hovenden v. Marshall,” 25 April 1857. Dublin: Edward J. Milliken, 1857. Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

Court of Exchequer.
Reported by John Norwood, Esq., and A. Delap M'Gusty, Esq., Barristers-at-Law.

Hovenden v. Marshall.——April 25.
Practice——Entering of suggestion——Legal representative——
  16 & 17 Vic. cap. 113, sec. 218.

The words "legal representative" in the 218th section of the
  16 & 17 Vic. c. 113, signifies——in cases where the lands
  are freehold of inheritance——the person who, as heir or
  devisee, succeeds to the deceased's rights or, in case the
  deceased has been tenant for life under a settlement, the
  person next in remainder.

  O'Donnell, for the plaintiff, moved that the defence filed in this action of ejectment be set aside, and for liberty to mark judgment, under the following circumstances: All the parties who had been served with the ejectment, having let judgment go by default, except James Marshall, who died shortly after having filed his defence, the plaintiff, to prevent an abatement of the suit, entered a suggestion of Marshall's death, following the directions of the 218th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, and obtained an order for liberty to sign judgment, unless within twelve days Marshall's legal representative, or the tenant in possession, should take defence, the order to be served on the tenant and on Marshall's widow. The latter, after service of the order, filed the defence sought to be set aside, without alleging in it that she was the legal representative of her deceased husband. In the plaintiff's affidavit it was stated that Marshall had no legal representative, that he had died childless, leaving a widow and two brothers him surviving, and was in such embarrassed circumstances that there was no likelihood of a personal representative being raised to him. In the affidavit filed in answer to this by Mrs. Marshall's attorney it was alleged that, after Marshall's death, a case was submitted to counsel to advise as to his widow's rights to the land sought to be recovered in the ejectment; that the case set forth a full abstract of her title, and that counsel was of opinion that all her husband's rights had devolved on her, and that the land was now, on his death, her estate of right, according to the trusts of her marriage settlement.
  O'Donnell submitted that the words "legal representative" in the statute were equivalent to personal representative; but even though that were not so, that the statements in the answering affidavit were insufficient to satisfy the court as to Mrs. Marshall's title.
  Byrne, for Mrs. Marshall, contended, that although where the land sought to be recovered was a chattel interest, the term "legal representative" was synonimous [sic] with "personal representative," yet, where the land, as here, was a freehold of inheritance, those words signified the person, who, as heir or devisee, succeeded to the rights of the deceased, or where the latter was tenant for life, under a settlement, the person next in remainder. Mrs. Marshall bona fide claimed to be in the receipt of the rents of the land. She alleged her title accrued, according to the trusts of her marriage settlement, upon her husband's death. That should be enough to satisfy the court, for surely it would not be necessary, on this motion, that she should expose to an adverse claimant all the muniments of her title.
  By the Court.——The true construction of the Act is that contended for by Mr. Byrne. The motion is a very unjustifiable one, and must be refused with costs.

Source: Kilkenny Journal, 28 July 1858. "City Court—Thursday," re: Mulligan v. [Anne] Marshall and Brennan. Digital copy online at The British Newspaper Archive, www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (accessed 2017-01-03, by subscription). Transcribed by Alison Kilpatrick.

City Court——Thursday.
  At ten o'clock this morning, Mr. Justice Ball took his seat on the bench in this court, when the jury in the case of
 
Mulligan v. Marshall and Brennan
were called over, and the evidence proceeded.
  This was an action for trespass. The plaintiff, a farmer residing in the county of Dublin, lent, on mortgage, a sum of £100 to a Mr. Henry Hovenden, of the Queen's County, he, under the deed of mortgage, being entitled to enter into possession of some land, and by farming it, pay himself. Mrs. Marshall had a civil bill decree against Hovenden for a debt due to her; and her bailiff, Brennan, the other defendant, made a seizure under that decree, of the crops which Mulligan claimed as his, by virtue of the deed.
  The commencement of this case appeared in our last.
  Henry Hovenden examined by Mr. Armstrong, Q.C.——Proved the execution of the deed between himself and Mulligan; the transaction between them was a bona fide one; Whitty gave Mulligan possession of the lands; had no connection with the land since.
  On cross-examination by Mr. Walshe, Q.C., the witness stated that Mr. Wybrants got the facts of the case from Mulligan; brought Mr. Wybrants a letter from Mulligan; told Wybrants to take advice as to whether he had grounds of action. The witness was cross-examined at some length relative to proceedings between him and Mrs. Marshall on a former occasion. The witness then stated he made the agreement with Mulligan on the 23rd of March (civil bill put into witness's hand); that was a civil bill against witness by Mrs. Marshall, and bore date the 25th of March; heard of it about the 1st of April; witness gave the instructions about the preparing and the registering of the deed at the one time.
  Patrick Pender examined by Mr. Coates——Knows Miltown; was there in last April; was then harrowing oats for Mulligan; knows James Brennan; saw him that day at Miltown; he had his son Edward and Cummins with him; he told witness to unyoke the horses; witness said he would not; they stopped the horses then and unyoked them against the will of witness; they were hired horses; asked them to let him cover the seed, and they would not.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Lynch, Q.C.——Was working for Mulligan on this occasion; could not say when he ceased working for Mr. Hovenden; Mr. Mulligan's man, Whitty, came for witness to come back to work on the farm.
  Mr. A. May examined by Mr. Armstrong, Q.C.——Knows Miltown; was there on the 21st April; Mulligan was there, and a man of his was then harrowing oats; saw Brennan there and Mulligan told Brennan to do whatever business he had to do as he considered him and those with him to be trespassers; they said they came there under the protection of the law; other words followed, and Brennan set up the lands to auction, acting as auctioneer himself; there was a sale; Brennan then said to Cummins——"come now and I'll give you possession of your house;" when they went half way, Cummins said to Mulligan that he should go off the land, and Mulligan said he would not, and Brennan said he would get a warrant for him; witness and Mulligan went off the land.
  On cross-examination by Mr. Rollestone, Q.C.——Went to Mulligan that day with a message from his father; heard there was to be a sale that day.
  John Whitty examined by Mr. Coates——Knows Mr. Hovenden and Mr. Mulligan; remembers Mulligan getting possession of the lands of Miltown.
  To Mr. Lynch, Q.C.——Mulligan paid him wages after the auction of the sheriff.
  His Lordship several times objected to this kind of evidence on the part of the plaintiff; it was only repeating what had been deposed to the day before. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Coates said they could not help it in justice to their client, in consequence of the line of defence adopted by the other side.
  A number of documents were put in by counsel on both sides to be marked by the registrar.
  The plaintiff's case closed here.
  Mr. Rollestone, Q.C., asked his lordship to direct a nonsuit against Mrs. Marshall, as there was no evidence implicating her in the proceedings.
  Mr. Walsh [sic], Q.C., supported the application, by citing authorities on the point.
  Mr. Armstrong, Q.C., resisted the application, and cited authority to show that the bailiff in an action was appointed at the risk of the plaintiff in an ejectment decree, as were the relations in this case between Brennan and Mrs. Marshall.
  Mr. Coates supported Mr. Armstrong.
  The Court decided to allow Mr. Walsh liberty to move hereafter for a non-suit, in case it should be found that Mrs. Marshall was not liable.
  Mr. P. Hughes the attesting witness to the deed between Mulligan and Hovenden, was here put on the table and proved his attestation to the deed and then he was asked by Mr. Hovenden to witness its execution.
  Mr. Walsh, Q.C., addressed the Jury on the part of Mrs. Marshall, contending that she was wholly blameless in the transaction and averring that the action was really at the suit of Mr. Henry Hovenden and not at the suit of Mr. Mulligan.
  Mr. Lynch, Q.C., then spoke to evidence on the part of Brennan, and there the evidence for the defence was gone into.
  Miss Florinda Hovenden examined by Mr. Rollestone, Q.C.——Knows Mr. Wybrants; called on him in Dublin on business, at one time in consequence of a notice which had been received from him about costs; went to him with the money; Mr. Wybrants told witness that it was all Mr. Hovenden's fault, that he had not written for the cost, for Mr. Dunn had arrested Mr. Hovenden in the street, and had so angered him.
  On cross examination by Mr. Coates, the witness said she lived with her sister, Mrs. Marshall, at Kingstown; Brennan told her of the action at Kingstown; a strange man called at Kingstown with a writ, but she had told the servant not to let him in.
  Counsel here handed in the order of the court above referred to, to change the venue in this record from the County Kilkenny to the Queen's County, made on behalf of Mrs. Marshall.
  James Brennan examined by Mr. Lynch, Q.C.——It was witness made the seizure on Hovenden; saw Whitty there the day he made the seizure, and also he saw Mulligan there; took Mr. Redge with him that day as he had been cautioned about Hovenden; allowed Mulligan the civil bill decree which he had against Hovenden; Mulligan told witness he would not pay any more money for Hovenden; the decree was for £19 15s. 0d., and witness offered to take half of the decree then, and to wait for the other half; witness told Mulligan he did not know him, and Mulligan would not tell witness his name although he asked him, for he thought that perhaps Mulligan had some claim on the land; asked Mulligan what claim he had to the land, but he would not tell him, and then witness said he would seize on the plot of wheat; that was all he had to seize on the land; on the 21st saw Mulligan again, and he then refused to show his claim to the land; Mulligan was insolvent that day and took off his coat and cried out——"I'll lick you my old b——" (laughter) witness pacified him as well as he could.
  On cross-examination by Mr. Armstrong, Q.C., the witness adhered to his direct testimony, and said that he had heard his son say that he would kick the pot-belly off him (Mulligan); Cummins did not pay the £16 for the land; is called —— terrible Brennan——in the Queen's County; did not tell the horses to be taken from the harrow.
  Mr. Rolleston, Q.C., spoke to evidence on the part of Mrs. Marshall.
  Mr. Coates on the part of the plaintiff replied, contending at the outset that up to the time of the serving of the writ, the defendants acted in unison, but then they separated their defences for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of such extensive legal assistance as they possessed in the present case and still their defences were one and the same. Counsel applied himself to the evidence to prove that averment.
  The Jury found a verdict for the defendant, but reserved certain points for Mr. Coates, on which to ground a motion for a new trial if he was so advised.
  Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Armstrong, Q.C., and Mr. Coates——Attorney, Mr. G.S. Wybrants; Counsel for the defendants, Mr. Lynch, Q.C., Mr. Rolleston, Q.C., and Mr. Walsh, Q.C.——Attorneys, Mr. W. Dunne and Mr. C. Thorpe.

Please cite your sources.

Return to county Tyrone news transcripts index page.
Return to Ireland news transcripts index page.
Return to Newspaper transcripts index.

© Alison Kilpatrick, 2017. All rights reserved.
Copyright notice

❖          ❖          ❖

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."—Lesley Poles Hartley (1895–1972), The Go-Between (1953).

E-mail   |   Subscribe to RSS feed   |   Subscribe to mailing list   |   Privacy statement   |   Site map

© Alison Kilpatrick 2014–2017. All rights reserved.