The Spring Assizes for the City of Limerick commenced with an opening address by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord (Brien. The courthouse was filled with anticipation as legal proceedings got underway. The Grand Jury was sworn in, comprising respected individuals from the community. Notably, Mr Wi. McDoouell, Mr James I’ Barry, Mr David Begley, and others were present.

The Lord Chief Justice acknowledged that the city of Limerick was enjoying a state of normalcy, practically devoid of serious criminal activity. This positive trend had persisted for a significant period, and he expressed his hope that it would continue in the same vein. He did mention that one bill would require attention, posing no significant challenges.

The Lord Chief Justice pointed out that the presence of a full grand jury was essential for the legal proceedings to proceed smoothly. He addressed the absence of a member, Mr Goudbudy, and emphasized that the bill would need the signature of twelve grand jurors due to his absence. He underscored the importance of attendance and communication, acknowledging that absences could be reasonable but should be communicated in advance. While he had the power to impose fines on grand jurors, he made it clear that such actions weren’t warranted in this case, as he believed Mr Goudbudy had valid reasons for his absence. However, he encouraged grand jurors to attend in the future and be mindful of their responsibilities.

The Lord Chief Justice reminded the Grand Jury to work efficiently, as the courthouse was damp and not conducive to prolonged proceedings. Later, it was noted that Mr Goodbody had provided an explanation for his absence, which the Lord Chief Justice found satisfactory, acknowledging Mr Goodbody’s dedication to his duties.

The trial of Patrick Creamer followed, where he was accused of snatching a lady’s gold watch from Mrs. De Burgh. The prosecution, led by Mr M J Dunne, presented the case, while the defendant was unrepresented. Mrs. De Burgh testified about the incident, stating that her watch was snatched from her wrist in Queen Street. She could not identify the snatcher but confirmed the watch produced in court as the stolen item.

A witness, Denis McNamara, testified that Creamer had tried to sell him a ladies’ gold watch, which he eventually bought for 6s. The jury deliberated, but some jurors were unsure of the defendant’s guilt due to the absence of direct evidence connecting him to the theft. The Lord Chief Justice clarified the legal principle of recent possession of stolen property as sufficient evidence. The jury returned with a verdict of guilty. The defendant’s criminal record was highlighted, indicating multiple previous convictions.

As the trial concluded, the focus shifted to the Record Court, where appeals were heard, marking the continuation of the legal proceedings during the Limerick Assizes.

Limerick Echo – Tuesday 06 March 1906