NIR-ARMAGH-L Archives

Archiver > NIR-ARMAGH > 2002-05 > 1021373722


From: Alison Causton <>
Subject: [ARMAGH] Armagh Guardian: County Armagh Assizes - Mar 1845 - Part 8
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 06:55:22 -0400


Armagh Guardian: County Armagh Assizes - Mar 1845 - Part 8
=====
The following article was transcribed from The Armagh Guardian (4 Mar
1845; microfilm), by permission of The British Library.
=====

NOTE: This article is very long and shall be published in several
parts. Part 8 concludes this series of articles on the Spring session
of the quarterly Armagh assizes. This part describes a legal action of
ejectment taken by the Earl of Gosford against one of his tenants, Mr. Robb.
=====

COUNTY ARMAGH ASSIZES.
---------------------
...
RECORD COURT--Friday.
BEFORE JUDGE TORRENS.
The Earl of Gosford against Robb.
This was an ejectment on the title. It was set forth that the
lease made to defendant was illegal, inasmuch as it was signed
by Lord Gosford's agent without authority--a delegated authority,
by power of attorney, being always necessary in such matters.
Messrs. TOMB, JOY, and O'HAGAN for defendant.
On the part of defendant Mr. TOMB argued that his right had
not been questioned until on a certain occasion he incurred the
displeasure of Lord Gosford, when the ejectment was brought.
Defendant had been allowed to register himself as a voter, and
exercise all his right as a leaseholder in every respect, until the
period alluded to, when that right was questioned. At the
Newry Quarter Sessions the case had been tried, and it was
argued in the Courts above, and defendant's right maintained ;
and Mr. Tomb now left it to the decision of the jury.
In reply it was stated that Robb had occupied, although five
years' rent in arrear, and after such indulgence, he could not be
continued as a tenant: that if the arrear of rent had not been
on the holding, the title of Robb might not now have been
questioned.
His Lordship addressed the jury, passing high encomiums on
Lord Gosford, one of the most humane and indulgent landlords.
He directed their particular attention to the law, which gave
Mr. Blacker no authority to sign the lease without a legal
power from Lord Gosford, and left the jury no difficulty in
deciding the matter.
The jury found for the plaintiff--6d. damages, and costs.
Solicitor for plaintiff, Mr. BARKER; for defendant, Mr.
MAGEE.
This was the only matter of interest in this court. The
business terminated on Friday evening.
=====

This reprint is intended SOLELY for the non-commercial use of family
historians, with the sincere hope that a Lister may find the content
useful. I am not descended from the person(s) mentioned herein.
**Please refer any questions arising from this article to the general
readership of the NIR-ARMAGH mailing list.**

This thread: