Newfoundland Labrador NL GenWeb Conception Bay North Wills

Court House Harbor Grace Records of Court of Session 1788-1790
John Dinan ag Maurice Burn John Dinan having presented a petition setting forth that on the 5th day of May past one Maurice Burn had accused him with having a watch in his possession which had been stolen from the said Burn, and that he had called Evidence to prove his having purchased the watch from one Almond a Ilwin, Bristol, and prayed to have the Evidence examined and to be granted redress in the premises. On referring to the transaction of the Day aforesaid it appeared “That Maurice Burn came before this Court and being sworn saith that he about the 8th day of October 1786 was at one Edward Murphy’s at Harbour Grace and being in liquor laid asleep on a Bench near the fire, that he was informed that while he lay there John Dinan came into the house in Company with one Connors who desired him, Dinan, to secure the watch for him, said Burn. That while he lay there as aforesaid the watch was taken from him and further he on his oath taken as aforesaid said that the watch then in the possession of the said John Dinan and now produced by him is his property which he lost as aforesaid and that he had bought the same from one Mr. John Pranth, who being called and sworn saith that the watch now produced is the same watch he sold to the aforesaid Maurice Burn. The Court then proceeded to examine the witness agreeable to the prayers of said petition when Michaal Conners being duly sowrn saith that he went with John Dinan on or at the 8th day of October 1786 into the house of one Edmond Murphy and saw Maurice Burn lying there on a bench by the fireside apparently much in liquor, the chain of his watch hanging out, desired the said John Dinan to take it otherwise Burn might lose it, which he, Dinan, refused to do, and he does not recollect when Dinan left for home and thus desposed further saith that on the morning following he, the said Maurice Burn, called on him and acquainted him with his having lost the watch and further he saith not. Timothy Kennedy sworn saith he was at Murphy’s with some company in October 1786, says he saw Maurice Burn lying there on a bench, there were many other people in the house about the Chimney, he did not hear Burn say anything or take any notice of a watch which he had; he the Deponent left the house in company with John Dinan who wanted this Deponent to sleep with him—and further that he was informed next morning that said Burn had lost his watch and further he says not. Peter Cummins being called and duly sworn saith that he had a watch in his possession which much resembled that now produced in Court, sold the same to one Cain, a joyner, but cannot positively say it is the same. Edmund Cashen sworn as aforesaid. Received a watch from Cain which he had raffled for in Port de Grave and one Robert Phelan won it. Cannot say the watch now produced is the same.

John Dinan

Maurice Burn

John Dinan having presented a petition setting forth that on the 5th day of May past one Maurice Burn had accused him with having a watch in his possession which had been stolen from the said Burn, and that he had called Evidence to prove his having purchased the watch from one Almond a Ilwin, Bristol, and prayed to have the Evidence examined and to be granted redress in the premises.

On referring to the transaction of the Day aforesaid it appeared “That Maurice Burn came before this Court and being sworn saith that he about the 8th day of October 1786 was at one Edward Murphy’s at Harbour Grace and being in liquor laid asleep on a Bench near the fire, that he was informed that while he lay there John Dinan came into the house in Company with one Connors who desired him, Dinan, to secure the watch for him, said Burn. That while he lay there as aforesaid the watch was taken from him and further he on his oath taken as aforesaid said that the watch then in the possession of the said John Dinan and now produced by him is his property which he lost as aforesaid and that he had bought the same from one Mr. John Pranth, who being called and sworn saith that the watch now produced is the same watch he sold to the aforesaid Maurice Burn.

The Court then proceeded to examine the witness agreeable to the prayers of said petition when

Michaal Conners being duly sowrn saith that he went with John Dinan on or at the 8th day of October 1786 into the house of one Edmond Murphy and saw Maurice Burn lying there on a bench by the fireside apparently much in liquor, the chain of his watch hanging out, desired the said John Dinan to take it otherwise Burn might lose it, which he, Dinan, refused to do, and he does not recollect when Dinan left for home and thus desposed further saith that on the morning following he, the said Maurice Burn, called on him and acquainted him with his having lost the watch and further he saith not.

Timothy Kennedy sworn saith he was at Murphy’s with some company in October 1786, says he saw Maurice Burn lying there on a bench, there were many other people in the house about the Chimney, he did not hear Burn say anything or take any notice of a watch which he had; he the Deponent left the house in company with John Dinan who wanted this Deponent to sleep with him—and further that he was informed next morning that said Burn had lost his watch and further he says not.

Peter Cummins being called and duly sworn saith that he had a watch in his possession which much resembled that now produced in Court, sold the same to one Cain, a joyner, but cannot positively say it is the same.

Edmund Cashen sworn as aforesaid. Received a watch from Cain which he had raffled for in Port de Grave and one Robert Phelan won it. Cannot say the watch now produced is the same.