The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-22 00:00:00

MURDER IN FANNET.

Michael Dogherty was indicted for the wilful murder
of James Friel, at Tullinadal, on the 27th February
last, and pleaded not guilty.
John Friel, brother of deceased, examined by Mr.
Schoales, Q.C.—The deceased, witness, and their
brother Michael, held ground jointly under the Earl of
Leitrim. Last year, or some time before, there was a
division of farms in that part of the estate, accord-
ing to which witness and his brothers got thirty
perches more or less of the ground held by prisoner's
father, who got some in lieu of it. Witness and his
brothers cropped those perches last year. Before
breakfast, on the 27th of February, witness and his
brothers were turning a lea rig beside an old ditch
on the acquired ground. Michael had a crow-
bar—the others spades. The prisoner came down
to them with a gun in his hand, and a bayonet
tied on its muzzle. He was holding his gun in both
hands. Witness was than four or five yards from de-
ceased. Prisoner swore by the five crosses that he
would stick or sliver some of them. Michael was
nearest to prisoner, and James next. Prisoner made
an attempt to stab Michael, but he escaped the blow.
He then stabbed James, who cried, " 0, John, I am
done !" Witness got hold of him, and, opening his shirt,
saw a wound on the left breast, and blood rushing
from it. Saw several persons at a distance, and called
to them, and laid deceased on the ground, still having
him in his arms. He may have lived about twelve
minutes, but not more. He and his brothers did or
said nothing to provoke prisoner, but tried to keep
him off with their spades.
Cross-examined by Counsellor Doherty.—They
had been neighbours of the Doghertys for 12 or 13
years. The Doghertys had been longest on the land.
Mr. Law, the agent, had been making new arrange-
ments and division lines. There were trees, some of
them pretty old, on the ditch he has spoken of, and
witness and his brothers were going to uproot them.
They had a hatchet with them. The trees were
ash and sycamore—some, perhaps, twenty years old.
The Doghertys never came to them to say that
the trees were theirs. They were on the piece of
ground which they, the Friels, got, and they got it
without any exception. They were all friendly
before that. When the prisoner came down, he did
not say, " Don't touch the trees till the landlord
decides about them." They, the Friels, were working
upon the ditch, but not near the trees ; they had
taken away three of the trees the day before, at which
time he cannot say whether old Dogherty was taken
from home. Was not then warned by prisoner
against taking the trees. They might be worth a
shilling a piece. They intended to take more of them
that day. Prisoner never mentioned Mr. Law's
name. Witness and his brothers had also got some
of Michael Shiel's land. Did not " see prisoner
pushed or struck. Never saw marks of violence on
his arm, but has heard there were. Is sure that he
(witness) did not cause them. Had not heard that
old Dogherty was to go that very day to Mr. Law
about the trees, but next day heard it.
Several other witnesses were examined.

After some time spent in deliberation, the jury re-
turned with a verdict of guilty, to which w,s added a
recommendation to mercy. The Judge inquired the
ground of their recommendation, and was answered
by the foreman that it was the youth of the prisoner ;
on which his Lordship shook his head doubtingly,
and the prisoner was removed from the bar.

On Saturday the unfortunate culprit was sen-
tenced to be executed. When the Judge had con-
cluded, the prisoner fell on his knees, and with hands
uplifted and pressed together, implored that he might
be transported for twenty years or be imprisoned for
five years. The witnesses against him, he said, could
say what they pleased ; but, if wronged by them, he
knew "he would not be wronged when he came
before the high God of the high heavens." He was
then removed.

The Derry Journal says tbere is a strong desire in
its locality that the life of Dogherty may be spared, as
he showed no premeditation.

DEPLORABLE STATE OF MAYO.
(From the Castlebar Constitution.)
In passing sentence, on Monday morning, on the
persons convicted at the assizes, Baron Richards made
some very feeling and suitable observations. He
regretted to find that there was so much crime in
the county of Mayo. It was true the lives of none
of the magistrates had been attempted; nor were
there such crimes as were perpetrated in some other
counties ; but the cause of regret was not the
less, Though the people did not take the lives of
magistrates, or persons in the upper walks, they at-
tacked, dreadfully beat, and murdered one another.
This was not less heinous than if they attacked and
killed those above them; for the life of a poor man
and his person should be held as sacred as that of the
rich man, and should be protected. He regretted,
also, to find that the people were not improved by the
lessons they got in the house of God. But that was
not the case. In many instances, at this and other as-
sizes here, he found that the course of proceeding was
for the people to come hot from the house of worship
to the house of whiskey near it, and from that begin
to fight on the public highway, and with sticks and
stones attack their fellow-creatures who knelt with
them in the same chapel a few minutes before, and
to pursue that system until they deprived each other
of life. On a former occasion he had alluded to
this unfortunate custom, and was sorry to find
that it still continued. He did not know what to
attribute it to, unless to the unfortunate propensity
which distinguished this county from all others—a
propensity to indulge in the use of ardent spirits.