The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-13 00:00:00

TIiE KING V. DONLAN AND ANOTHER.

Sir J. SCA KLETT stated that this was an indictment
against Mr. Donlan and Lord Teynham, for a conspiracy
to procure the sum of MON. from the prosecutor Didi-
mus Langford, under the promise of obtaining for him a

'ituation under Government. The circumstances were
shortly these :—The prosecutor, Mr. Langford, having in
ISIS a small snm of money (2,0001. or 3,000/4, was
anxious to employ it so as to insure a permanent sub-
si,tence, and the obtaining of a situation under Govern-
nient was pointed out to him as being a likely mode to
arect his object. On mentioning his wish to a friend, be
was introduced to the defendant Donlan, who gave him
to undersand that the situation he required could be pro-
ured for 1,400/, Mr. Donlan introduced him to Lord
Teynham, as the person through whose interest with the
Government the situation was to be obtained. At sub-
sequent interviews with his Lordship, the prosecutor en-
tertained no doubt that Lord Teynham was to partici-
p tte in the sum to be given by him as a consideration,
arid the result was that 1,4001. was lodged with the de
fendants ; but up to the present moment no situation had
been obtained.

Didimus Langford, the prosecutor, being, in October,
1828, anxious for employment, applied to Mr. Earle, by
whom he was introduced to,Mr. White, who introduced
_ _ _

him to Mr. Donlan, the defendant. Mr. White was pre-
sent with witness at Mr. Donlan's, at No. 32, Duke-
street, St. James's, when the latter agreed to procure
witness a situation for the sum of 1,400/., and stated that

it would be necessary for witness to leave a deposit, by way
of security. Witness having only about SOL about him
'eft that sum, and Mr. Donlan said it would be necessary

fur him to leave with him the halves of Bank of England
notes for the 1,4001., as a sort of security to keep him to
his bargain until the situation was obtained. Witness
accordingly on the 13th of October, sold out 1,4001., and
took the halves of notes for 1,220/. to Donlan, which he
left with him, and which, with 1801. he had before given
him, made up the 1,4001. (Mr. Donlan's acknowledg-
ment for the above suin was put in and read.) It was on
the 16th of October Lord Teynhatn's name was first used,
when witness was told that his Lordship was to procure
the situation. Donlan promised witness to introduce him
to Lord Teynham, and he was accordingly introduced to
his Lordship in Donlan's drawing-room, where Lord
Teynham took him by the hand, and said be understood
witness was in want of a situation. Lord Teynham
said that he bad interest to procure a situation
for witness in the Treasury, commencing at 2001.
per annum. Shortly after witness received a letter from
Donlan, enclosing one from Lord Teynham. [The letter,
which was read, intimated that his Lordship would pay
every attentio❑ to the matter for the purpose of procuring
the situation.] Subsequently, at a meeting between wit-
ness and Donlan, the latter wished him to give him the
other halves of 2001. notes, as Lord Teynbarn was very
much in want of cash for the purpose of proceeding in an
action of eject rant. Witness accordingly gave them, and
obtained Donlan's acknowledgment. [This was read.]
After this time witness frequently applied to Donlan to
know whether the situation was ready, and received dif-
ferent reasons from him for the delay. On one occasion a
letter from Lord Teynham to Donlan was shown to witness
by Donlan, stating " that he had just seen his noble friend
at the Treasury, and that he should shortly be able to
succeed." It appeared that at different times, between
this and May, 1829, the witness, at the several re-
quests of Donlan, gave up the corresponding halves of
notes to the amount of 700/., and Donlan's acknow-
ledgments from time to time were put in and read.
The witness then stated, that front this time until the end
of the month (May) several levers had passed from Don-
lan to him (all of which were produced and read), ex-
pressing regret at the delay in procuring the situation, and
assuring him of the certainty of its being obtained. On
the 30Th of May witness called by appointment on Don•
lan, who, for the first time, told him that on entering
upon the situation, which was ready, witness would have
to swear be had not given money for it. Witness re-
plied he could not take a false oath, and rather than do
so he would give up all thoughts of the situation. It was
then suggested by Donlan, as a means of evading the oath,
that witness should give up the halves of the other 700/.,
making the whole transaction assume the appearance of a
loan, for which Lord Teynhatn would give him a bond,
which, after a fortnight or so had elap.ed, could be de-
stroyed. This mode of proceeding would enable witness to
swear that he had not paid money for the situation. Wit-
ness assented, and it was arranged that the other half-
notes should be given up by him, and the bond he
handed over to him on the 4th of June following.
On the 4th of June witness went to Donlan's by
appointment to meet Lord Teynham by appointment.
The witness proceeded : Lord Teynham told me that
the situation was ready, and I was to be called in a

fortnight, and that his taking the money in that way was
only to enable me to tike the oath, and that it was his in-
tention to take me to the treasury in his own carriage,
and introduce me to a situation which was good enough
f.r his own son. [The bond was here banded to witness.]

He saw Lord Teynham sign it, and Donlan witmes it;
saw no part of the bond filled up ; it was filled up whilst
he (witness) was up stairs. [The bond was put in
and read. It was in the usual form, with the exception
of the condition which was to the effect that if Lord Teyn-
ham should pay the 1,4001. and interest, the bond should
he void, but that so long as the interest should be re-
gularly paid, Lord Teynham should not be called on to
pay the principal, unless he thought proper. A few days
after the 4th of June, Donlan asked him whether he knew
of anybody who would undertake the superintendence of
a species of manufacture for soldiers' trousers. Witness
said he would himself, as he had been brought up to the
trade of a fancy silk-weaver. He entered upfin that occu-
pation. Did not see Lord Teynharn for months after the
bond was signed. Did not get the situation at the Trea-
sury promised by Midsummer. When he saw Lord Teyn-
ham, he said that the salary was going on, and repeated

what Donlan had said. The nature of the employment
at the Treasury was not exactly defined, but attendance
there from 11 to 3 would be required. Both Donlan and
Lord Teynham told him so. Tbe name of another Noble
Lord was mentioned during the transaction—it was that

of Lord Ellenborough. At the expiration of the first six
weeks nothing passed except all sorts of excuses on
the part of Donlan, who repeated that the salary was

going on, though there was no occasion for attendance to
the duties of the office ; he could not say when it was he
saw Lord Teynhani for the last time ; Donlan paid him
interest on the bond, at the rate of five per cent. ; on se•

veral occasions the payment of interest was deferred a
furtnight, and he was sometimes obliged to take Donl m's
acceptance for it, to get which cashed he was forced to

sacrifice a third of the money ; he went on in this way
. .

some time before he broke off dll communication with Don-
lan.--(A letter, dated March 13, 1832, from Donlan to

witness, was put in and read.) This answer was forced
from Donlan by several lettets threatening legal proceed-
inns ; its contents were, that "he (Donlan) had received
the witness's violent letters—that it would be folly to insti-
tute legal proceedings, and that the thing (the situation)
stood on good grounds, and that he (Donlan) was making
all the exertions he could." He had no intercourse
with Donlan since ; got no situation, and had devoted

sixteen months to the soldiers' trousers concern with•

out receiving any remuneration ; be offered to accept 501.
for his services during that period ; the bond was signed
o❑ the 4th of June, between the hours of 12 and 2 ; he
dined with Donlan afterwards, though be was anxious
get home, for fear he should lo.e the bond ; but Donlan
begged him to stop, and induced him to take several glasses
of wine and branq and water, telling him that it would
do him good, as he seemed nervous; afterwards, about 7
o'clock, he felt the symptoms of intoxication, and wished
to go home, but Donlan insisted that he should not, as
Lord Teynham bad given an order for one of the theatres;
the orderfwas said to be for the King's box. Donlan took
a coach and drove to Drury-!ane Theatre, and told him he

was in the King's box.
Cross-examined by Mr. TIIESSIGER—He was told that
was the King's box, and in the state he was in he believed
it. His original business was figure weaving. When out
of his apprcn'iceship, had worked for himself in two or
three places, for about the period of three years. The
first date of seeing Lord Teynham was the 16th of Oc-
tober; White was not present ; would swear that was
the day be saw his Lordship, and that nobody bat Donlan
was present ; White was never present at any interview
he had with Lord Teyttharn, but Donlan was frequently.
There was an understanding that the transaction should
be completely secret. He entered into Donlan's service
about four months aft r the bona was signed. Continue°
in it about 18 months. He was considered a rort of su

Several letters, receipts, and documents, were handed
to witness. He said that the writing was like his, but
could not swear it was his or not. He thought not. ILs
reasons for doubting were, that whilst drinking brands
and water Donlan dictated to him several letters. He
could not recollect the contents of those letters, nor the
handwriting.
The Duke of Wellington, who sat on the bench, on
the left of the Lord Chief Justice, was sworn, and exa-
o)ined by Sir J. SCA ItLETT....I know Lord Teynham. I
was first Lord of the Treasury at the time of the date of
those letters. Lord Teynham made to me no application
for a situation for a person of the name of Langford ;
however, I received several letters of application for situa-
tions from Lord Teynham ; one was for a situation for
his Lordship's son, or nephew, I forget which. I declined
:weeding to any of those applications. His Grace then
identified the handwriting of Lord Teynham to the bond
and several other documents.
Mr. Tli ESSIG ER, for the defendant, Lord Teynham, said
the ease required the most serious attention of the iury, a 3
it rested on the solitary charge of one individual—the. pro-
secutor, and involved the reputation and character of troth
defendants. It was very strange that the Counsel for
prosecution had not called another witness (White), who
Was present when the first transaction took place, and who
might have confirmed or contradicted the prosecutor's
statement. He begged the jury to look to the prosecu-
tor's story, to the probability of the case, and to weigh all
the circumstances, and then see whether they could per-
fectly fix such a charge upon Lord Teynhain. The real
facts were these :—Lord Teynham had applied to Donlan
for the loan of money, and Donlan obtained this sum from

t'.c prosecutor for that purpose ; but his Lordship had
received only 600/. from Donlan, 100/. being paid to him
(Donlan) as a bonus. The bond being made out for
1,400/. was accounted for by the fact that, in reality, 10
per cent. was to be paid, and therefore the principal
was nominally doubled. There was nothing, he con-
tended, in any of Lord Teynham's letters to show that his
Lordship had not exerted his interest bona fide for the pro-
secutor at the solicitation of Donlan, whom he really
jibed to oblige, as having procured him the loan of
mey. The Learned Counsel then commented on some
parts of the prosecutor's evidence, and alluded to the easy
way in which he had parted with his money.
Sir J. SCA RLETT afidt met' the jury in reply.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE recapitulated the evidence
to the jury, and observed, that the prosecutor was either a
very silly man or a most perjured man. It was for the
jury to decide upon his evidence, coupled with the other
testimony.

The jury found a verdict of Guilty against both defen-
dants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 11.

BENNETT V. M'MAIION.

This was an action by Miss Fanny an Bennett, suing
by her next friend (Mrs. Bennett, her mother), against
John CiceroM'Mahon, for a breach of promise of marriige.

It appeared that the defendant, who is a clerk in the
Post-office, at a salary of 110/. a year, became acquainted
with the plaintiff about three years ago. He was then
about twenty-seven years of age, and she about sixteen.
The plaintiff's father, who died in 1831, was at that time
a check-taker at Covent-garden Theatre, and also had
some office in the army depot. The defendant was 're-
ceived by the plaintiff's family anti friends as her future
husband, his attentions to her being in all respects those
of a person intending to fill that relation towards her. Hi■
mother and sister, however, were greatly averse to the
match, and represented to him that reports were abroad in-
jurious to the plaintiff's character. The defendant said be
did not believe them, and requested his mother and sister to
call on the plaintiff, and give her an opportunity of vindi-
cating herself, which they agreed to do. He then wrote
a note to the plaintiff apprising her of the object of the
intended visit, and beseeching her to keep a guard over
her temper, and not appear to disadvantai;e to his mother.
What the result of the interview was did not ❑ppear.
Not long before this, and shortly prior to the death of her
father, the plaintiff had granted to the defendant the
privilege of a husband, but it was not stated under what
circumstances this intimacy took place. In the month of
April last year there was a meeting at the house of a Mrs.
Knight, between the plaintiff, her mother, and the de-
fendant, at which Mrs. Knight and her two daughters
were present. The plaintiff was then pregnant, ari her
mother asked the defendant what were his intentions to-
words her daughter? He replied that he was very sorry
h.. could not marry her, as it would displease his mother.
The plaintiff burst into tears, and said if he would
only marry her she aid not care if he left her the
next day; she would never ask hint to support her.
The defendant said it was impossible; upon which the
plaintiff's toothier said, " If you desert my daughter, I hope
you do not mean to desert your child," to which he re-
plied that he never would. Not long before this meeting
took place, the defendant having previously written letters
to her from time to time, addressed "My dear Fanny,"
aryl, worded in the usual common-place style, wrote her a
note commencing thus—" Fanny," and concluding as
abruptly " John," in which he sent her a wedding-ring
and keeper, and told her that he had suffered so much on
her account that be would never see her mare. She had,
however, another interview with him, at which she ob-
tained from him a promise, written in pencil on a leaf of
his pocket-book, in these words—" I, John Cicero M'Ma-
hon, do hereby promise to make Fanny Eliza Bennett
my wife on Monday, March 4, 1832." Oa the following
day, however, she received a note from him to the
following effect :—" Madam, yesterday ycu extorted
from me a promise to marry you to-morrow. Un-
der existing circumstances it is impossible for me to
marry you then or at any other time. It is quite
useless for you to wish to see me with a view to make me
perform that promise ; for if I gave you a hundred pro-
mises, I could not, in justice to myself, perform them."
No further intercourse took place betwee❑ the parties; and
in October last the plaintiff, then not nineteen years of age,
was delivered of a child. In the mean time the defendant
MD tied another woman. The plaintiff's attorney having
written to him requesting an interview with hint or his
friends, for the purpose of effecting some arrangement on
the subject, and no notice having been taken of that letter,
the present action was commenced.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evi4risc.„
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaiDtiff---Da,
tn ages, 1001.

REMARKABLE TRADITION.—Orthe i 4 three
Viscountesses" (daughters of the Duchess of Tyncox-
NI.LL), Lady DILLON appears to have been the most re-
markable, and to have inherited with the high blood of
the HAMILTONS no small share of that lively and wilcu
temp,r which distinguished her mother's family. There
is a curious tradition respecting her still preserved among
the peasantry of the country in which she resided. It is
rel ited that, on the death of Lord DILLON, she inhabited
L itighlin Castle, then only one of the numerous castles and
p laces possessed by the Irish DILLONS. This princely
feudal edifice covered two acres of land ; and, with the
estate round it, was assigned to her as her jointure, but
with the proviso, that she should reside during her life in
the castle. The lady, in her widowhood, was seized with
a passion for a young Englishman ; and being unable to
detain him with her, or to follow him to England as long
as her castle existed, she determined on the wildest and
boldest project that ever entered the head of an
tuous woman borne away by the violence of passion;
ordered a banquet to be spread in her garden, then tired
the castle, and feasted by the light of the blazing pile.
After supper, and while the towers were yet burning, the
set off for England with her lover.--Court of Charles.
the Second.

COMMISSION OF LUNACY.-The inquiry
into the state of mind of THOMAS BLAKE, of Farringdot.-
s:reet, was resumed on Thursday, at the Loudon CArees
house. After Mr. BACON had addressed the Jury
Ar.
iinsup-
port of the evidence given for the commission, HOLT
ad tressed the Jury for Mr. BLAKE. An intimation was
then made to the Commissioners, that Mr. BLAKE wished
to enter the room, and shortly after he came in, and
walked up in a hurried manner. He declined taking
a seat which was offered him, but walked up to the head of
the table, where the Commissioners were seated. Fe
said (speaking in a hurried manner) that his health was
:such better. He continued to talk in a aambling manner,
tid he wished to take a walk, and that as LAYBURN It d
him in custody, he could not run away. Mr. HoLT theli
called evidence against the Commission. Dr. Sroucts;
said he considered Mr. BLAKE'S vagaries, eccentricities,
and violence were attribuiable to example and defective
is
education. " I should say (Added the witness) that
sltliciently sound to manage himself and affairs." Dr.
TATTERSALL, Dr. UNwises, Mr. CATO, wholesale eta.
!.Otter; Mr. Wir.xtris, stationer, in flolb an; and Mr.
OLIVER, Mr. BLALE'S attorney, deposed dist Mr. BLAKE
WaY eccentric, but they considered him perfectly sane, and
competent to manage his affairs. The Jury returned a
verdict, finding, That Mr. BLAKE wa• taf ut ound mind
and had been in that state Since the lst o. October, 1529,