2
« on: Thursday 21 October 10 14:20 BST (UK) »
Sue,
Thanks for clarifying for me the relationship between the Berry & Irwin families. I found the following interesting 1853 court record involving the Late Thomas Berry Coroner. Thought I'd pass it on, especially because one of the jurors was "T. Pringle".
The 1772 marriage bond record I found for Mary Pringle & Thomas Berry, of BerryMount, referred to George Pringle (of Mulnagerman) as her parent or guardian. I had thought he was her father, but he infact might have been a close relative, which makes it possible for this Mary to be the d/of John & Lorton (Wilson) Pringle, if they were deceased. Or we might be talking about a different Pringle family.
My relatives George & Robert Pringle lived at Clifton Hill, Killeshandra District, Co. Cavan, which put them in the same area as your Berry family.
--George Russell, Listowel, Ontario, Canada
1853 newspaper article:
Source: Co. Cavan; Ireland Newspaper Abstracts: Anglo-Celt newspaper
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.
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.
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.
Show Posts