Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed
Regina v. Bridget Murphy
3 April 1833
Before Robert Carter, JP
Bridget Murphy of Ferryland, married woman, was brought before Robert Carter Esqr. J.P. charged on the oath of Mary Read her daughter, with having received from her the said Mary Read a quantity of Provisions at different times well knowing the same were the property of Patrick Connors and stolen from the House of the sd. Patrick Connors by directions of her said Mother, Bridget Murphy
She was bound over to appear before the Honble the Southern Circuit Court on the first day of next term in Ferryland to stand her trial for the said offence.
Regina v. Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed
16 February 1842
Before Robert Carter, JP
Information was laid at about 11 O'Clock of the Night of this day by Benjamin Sweetland Morry of Ferryland Clerk and Storekeeper to James H. Carter Esquire, Merchant, (at present in England) that the Store of the said James H. Carter had been feloniously entered by some person or persons unknown to this Informant and a quantity of salted Beef and pork stolen therefrom and a strong suspicion having attached to Bridget Hegarthy (Wife of Charles Hegarthy) and Mary Reed, her Daughter. Informant prayed that a search Warrant may be granted to search the premises of Charles Hegarthy which was granted accordingly and given to the Officer Sullivan to execute.
Regina v. Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed
17 February 1842
Before Robert Carter, JP
The Officer (Sullivan) to whom a search Warrant was directed to search the premises of Charles Hegarthy at Ferryland, for the discovery of a quantity of salted Beef and pork feloniously stolen from the Store of James H. Carter on the evening or night of the 16th. instant, came into Court and informed the same that he had made diligent search on the premises of Charles Hegarthy for the said Beef and pork but could not discover the same, but on entering the cellar of said Charles Hegarthy in company with Benjamin S. Morry they discovered a quantity of Shop Goods, enclosed in a Cotton Shirt and a Bread Bag which was identified by said Morry as the property of said James H. Carter which Goods the Officer brought to the police office, as well [as] Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed.
Contents of Bread Bag | ||
---|---|---|
2 pair Mens Boots | Valued at | £1.. 10.. |
3 pair Mens Shoes | " | .. 15.. |
3 pair Womens Shoes | " | .. 12.. |
4 Cotton Shirts | " | .. 10.. |
3 White serge dO | " | .. 15.. |
2 Blue dO dO | " | .. 10.. |
3 pair Womens Black Hose | " | .. 3.. |
4¾ Yards flat Canvas | " | .. 2..4 |
16 Yards Calico | " | .. 8.. |
2 pair Mens Braces | " | .. 1.. |
2 pieces Black Tape | " | .. ..2 |
1 Ball Black Worsted | " | .. .. .. |
13/8 Yards Flushing | " | .. 5.. |
4½ Yards Check | " | .. 2..3 |
3 lbs Bohea Tea | " | .. 7..6 |
3 Worsted Comforters | " | .. 1..6 |
1 pair Yarn Hose (Rat eaten) | " | .. ..3 |
1 tw [twist] Black Thread | " | .. 2..6 |
2¾ Yards Blue Flushing | " | ..11.. |
6..16..6 | ||
Contents of Cotton Shirt | ||
12 Yards Calico 6/ 4¾ Yds Serge 4/9 1 Blue Shirt 5/ | ..15..9 | |
2 lb Bohea Tea 5/ 1 Yard Calico 6d | .. 5..6 | |
1 Cotton Shirt | .. 2..6 | |
£8..0..3 | ||
the said Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed having undergone an examination and the depositions of Benjamin S. Morry, William Keefe, Richard Sullivan and John White taken, the said Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed were committed until tomorrow for the attendance of a second Magistrate.
Regina v. Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed
18 February 1842
Before Robert Carter and Mathew Morry, JPs
The above Magistrates having consulted on the case of Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed, the said Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed were fully committed to take their Trial at the approaching General Quarter Sessions of the peace on the 21st. Instant at Ferryland.
Regina v. Charles Hegarthy, Bridget Hegarthy, and Mary Reed
21 February 1842
Before Robert Carter, Peter Winser, John William Saunders, and Mathew Morry, JPs
A Bench Warrant was issued to apprehend Charles Hegarthy of Ferryland, fisherman, for having goods in his possession knowing the same to be stolen, and directed to the Deputy Sheriff, who returned wit the said Hegarthy in Custody to stand his trial for the Offence.
[Grand Jurors were sworn.]
The following Indictments were sent to the Grand Jury
The Queen against Bridget Hegarthy & | ||
Mary Reed | } | Larceny |
" Queen against Bridget Hegarthy | Having Goods | |
Mary Reed & | } | in possession |
Charles Hegarthy | knowg them to be stolen |
The foreman returned into Court with True Bills against the above prisoners, when Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed were placed at the Bar and Arraigned and pleaded Not Guilty…
[Petty Jurors were sworn.]
Witnesses on the part of the Crown, Benjn . S. Morry, Richard Sullivan, William Keeffe, John White. [No transcript of evidence.]
The Prisoners call no Witnesses.
Jury return into Court with their Verdict. Guilty
The Prisoners, Charles Hegarthy, Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed against whom a True Bill of Indictment was found for having Goods in their possession, knowing the same to have been stolen was placed at the Bar and arraigned, who pleaded, Not Guilty.
[Petty Jurors were sworn.]
Witnesses on the part of the Crown as before,
Prisoners call no Witnesses.
Jury return into Court with their Verdict Not Guilty
The Court then proceeded to pass Sentence on Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed. That the said Bridget Hegarthy and Mary Reed be imprisoned in the Gaol of Ferryland for the space of Twelve Calendar Months from this date.
Estate of William Carter v. Patrick Costelloe and Bridget Hegarthy
25 November 1844
Before Robert Carter, JP
This day appeared William Carter on behalf of his Father Arthur H. O. B. Carter (Agent and Attorney to the Estate of the Late William Carter Esquire deceased) and complained that some person or persons unknown to complainant, on or about Saturday last the 23rd. instant had stolen and taken away from a House belonging to the said Estate and formerly occupied by William Costelloe, 2 Studds, 7 or 8 Boards of a Loft, the whole of a back linhay and a Window Sash. Complainant under the above circumstances prays the interference of the Court for the detection of the/the Offenders. ~ ~ ~
Whereupon Patrick Costelloe and Bridget Hegarthy was summoned before the Court and underwent a strict examination when nothing being elicited by said examinations for the further interference of the Court upon the said complaint, the parties were dismissed.
Sources: PANL, GN 5/4/C/1, Ferryland: box 1, 48, Regina v. Bridget Murphy, 3 April 1833; and box 2: Regina v. Bridget Hegarthy, and Mary Reed, 16, 17, 18, and 21 February 1842; Regina v. Charles Hegarthy, Bridget Hegarthy, and Mary Reed, 21 February 1842; and Estate of William Carter v. Patrick Costelloe and Bridget Hegarthy, 25 November 1844.