Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 4.djvu/376

 378 KILLEEN— KILLMOREY. X. 1613. 10, Lucas (Plunkett), Loud Killeen [L], s. and h,, aged 24 years in 1013. He was cr., 26 Sep. 102S, Eakl ok Fingall [I.] He <?. 2!) March 1637. XI. 1637. 11. Ciiristopheu (Plunkett), Earl of Fingall, and Loud Killeen [I.], s. ami h. He d. Aug. 1649. XII. 1649 12. Lucas (Plunkett), Earl of Fingall, anil Loud Killeen [L], s. and h. He d. about 1684. XIII. 1684? 13. Peter (Plunkett), Earl of Fingall, and Lorn) Killeen [I.], s. and h., whose outlawry of 11 May 1691 was reversed 2 Dec. 1697. He d. 21 Jan. 1717/8. XIV. 171b. 14 Justin (Plunkett), Earl of Fingall, and Loud Killeen [I.], only s. nnd h. lie d. s.p. 27 March 1734, and was stic. by his cousin and h. male, Hubert Plunkett, in the Earldom of Fingall [L] and (considering the nature of the ancientf") Irish Baronies) doubtless (also) in the Huron;/ of Killeen [I.] ; see " Kincall.'"('») KILLING WORTH. Sne •'' Airey of Killing worth, co. Northumberland," Baiony (Airey), cr. 1876, ex. 1831. KILLMOREY, see Kilmorey. (•1 See vol. iii, p. 224, note "a," sub " Dunsany." ( b ) Of the three tistcrs and coheirs of the 5th Earl of Fingall and 14th Lord Killeen (I) Margaret, m. 1720, John Nugent, of Coolamber, co. Longford, and d. 1747. Her issue was extinct before 1813 (2) Emilia, m. 14 July 1730, Robert Nugent, afterwards er. Viscount Clare [I.], and subsequently Earl Nugent [I.] She d. 16 Aug. 1731, leaving one child, Col. Edmund Nugent, who d. unin. 1771 (3) Mary, t». firstly Maurice O'Connor, of Mount Pleasant, King's county. She m, secondly Robert Fitz Gerald, LL.D., and d. April 1759. A claim to "the title and h.nors of Baron of Killeen " [I.] made by Maurice O'Connor, of Mount Pleasant, King's county, Esq., s. and h. of Mary, late wife of Maurice O'CnnnOr, Esq., of the same, and, as such, entitled to any Barony in fee that might have been vested in his maternal grandfather, Peter, late Earl of Fingall [I.], deed., was reported upon, 6 March 1813, by the Chief Law officers [I.], tit, William Saurin, Attorney Gen., and C. Bushe, Solicitor Gen., to whom it had been duly referred. They report that it appears to them " that a Barony in fee was cr. by the writ [1309/10]' to aud sitting in Pari. [1323-24] of Richard Tuit and the same was enjoyed and exercised by his heirs and by Christopher Plunket as such, and after his death [about 1567] became in abeyance among his three daughters," that ''it appears that James Plunket, br. to Christopher, was one of the Lords of Pari., 23 Eliz., and there appearing no patent on record by which the said James or any of his ancestors were cr. Barous of Killeen, with rem. to their heirs male, it was insisted on before us by the claimant that the said James was (1) either sum. to Pari, by writ as a new Peer or (2) that the ancient Barony was revived in him in preference to the female coheirs, and that in either case the heir gen. of the said James would be entitled to the Barony in fee and to his writ of summons accordingly." They state in con- clusion that, " it having appeared to us that James Plunket, the br. of the said Christopher and his h. male, sat in Pari, as Baron of Killeen, and [that] the memorialistis the h. gen. of the said James, we humbly conceive that the question thereupon arising whether the said James Plunket and his heirs were not thereby ennobled and did not thereby acquire a Barony in fee is lit anil proper to be submitted to the consideration and decision of the House of Lords.''