The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-02 00:00:00

BREACH OF PROMISE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN, JULY 25.
CA ILA V. 314NA3IARA.

The Jury having been sworn, Mr. DOHERTY,
the Counsel for the plaintiff, applied to the Court
to have the witnesses both, for plaintiff and de-
fendant removed. .Lists were then exchanged,
and the witnesses having left the Court—
Mr. CRAMPTON opened the pleadings. This
was an action of assumpsit for breach of marriage
promise. The Defendant, in the month of Octo-
ber, 1815, promised to marry Harriet Caila, on
request. The plaintiff remained single. There
were other counts varying as to form, and there
was another class of counts which stated, that de-
fendant had promised, at some future period, to
marry the plaintiff on request, or, if he failed so
to do, to pay her the sum of 5,0001. The de-
fendant had since married another lady. The
damages were laid at 5,000/. and the defendant
pleaded the general issue, that he did not make
the promise.
Mr. DOHERTY then rose and addressed the
Jury to the following effect
Gentlemen of the Jury,—ln this case, by a combination of
events, it is my duty, as senior Counsel for the plaintiff, to
state the case to you. It is impossible for me, Gentlemen,
to express my deep regret at the circumstances which have
placed me in this situation, and I feel that it would be im-
possible that any efforts of mine could compensate my client
for the irreparable loss she has sustained, in being deprived
of the able, zealous, and eloquent advocate who pleaded her
cause on the former trial. Gentlemen, I have not arro-
gantly sought for this distinction ; the Gentleman who stated
the case on the former trial was placed in a situation of pe-
culiar delicacy : he has wrongs of his own against the de-
fendant, and feeling that an advocate should forget himself
in his duty to his client, leaving all individual feeling out-
side the threshold of the Court, he has honourably declined
being concerned in the present case. Gentlemen, if it
would be arrogant in me to seek the distinction of the situa-
tion in which I am thus placed, perhaps it would be pusillani-
mous to decline it. Gentlemen of the Jury, you will, I
trust, bear with me, should I be tedious. You are, one
and all, the advocate of my client, and though I may
not cope in talent with those Gentlemen v, ho are arrayed
against me, yet it would seem that something more was
requisite ; it would appear that something of corporeal power,
some portion of bodily strength, was also necessary in
the Counsel who would undertake my client's case.—Gen.
tlemen, I must just tell you that the verdict lately obtain-
ed in this case was set aside on grounds merely legal,
with which you have nothing to do ; and I tell you, under
the correction of the Court,_ that the setting aside of that
verdict does not, in the slightest degree, affect the merits of
the case. There is no part of the manner in which defen-
dant's Counsel are about to conduct this defence that I ad-
mire more than the dexterity with which' they have arranged
the case. The light troops, Messrs. North and Woulfe,
are placed in front, but, ere long, reinforcements will be
pouring in, and you will see the Prussians bearing down,
but not, I trust, in victory—Were Mr. O'Connell, Counsel
for the defendant, entered the Courtd—You see, Gentlemen,
it is as I predicted—reinforcements are already coming in.—
(Laughter.)—Gentlemen, in the year 1806, when very young,
my client married Mr. Peter Caila, who died in the year 1809 ;
they resided at their house, No. 16, George-street, Bryanston-
square, London. Mrs. Caila subsequently let that house, and
took another in the same street; she expended .4:1,500 in fur-
nishing the house she had left; Lady Carrick was her tenant in
it, and afterwards Lord and Lady Roden. In the year 1811,
the plaintiff was first introduced to Mr. -M‘Namara, who, I
understand, is a gentleman from a remote part of this country,
and of a most respectable family ; he was at, the time a
Lieutenant or Captain in the Tower Hamlets Militia. A friend
of Mrs. Caila bought some of her furniture, and was accom-
panied to her (plaintiff's) house by the defendant. Gentlemen,
from that moment he

" Had marked her for his own ;",
he followed her like a shadow ; and though his attentions were
not so pointed as to alarm, yet they were not so vague as to be
misunderstood. He called frequently at her house and she
gave directions to her servant to be denied to him : this will be
proved to you by the servant who will be produced. Still he
persevered with unremitting assiduity, until at last he became
the master of her person. Gentlemen, I shall pass over his
vows, his attestations, his promises of immediate marriage ; I
admit that,
" She listen'd, she believ'd, and fell!"
Fertile in excuses, he wielded his oft-repeated promises to
lull her into security ; he knew she had the means of sup-
porting him—she had three hundred pounds a year herself,
and there were five thousand pounds settled on her child.

—The defendant was not possissed of a single shilling ; he
was continually in pecuniary embarrassments, as will be
proved by his own letters ; he was a beggar in circum-
stances ; and if his Counsel are now instructed to say, as
on a former occasion, that she was his kept mistress, shall
I not fling back the accusation, and tell this beggar, that he
who could not keep himself could not keep another ? In
one of his letters from Bath, in the year 1813, addressed.to my
client, and directed Mrs. 111‘Namara, he says, that .he, is
" obliged to quit Bath, being- unable to 'bity mourning."
Gentlemep, Mrs. Caila's child died in the year 1814, and
her death was the occasion of my client's return from
France, where she was then living with- the defendant. On
the former trial, the only witness produced on the part of the
plaintiff, Caroline Exton, underwent a most severe and long-
continued cross-examination, by one of the ablest Counsel at
the Bar, without any thing flaying transpired that could in the
slightest degree impeach the testimony she gave., Her cross-
examination commenced on the 9th of December, and con-
cluded on the 11th; for a day and a half she sat on that chair,
not only exposed to every question which the ingenuity of that
able Counsel could put to her, but also exposed to the brow-
beating looks of the defendant himself, who sat directly oppo-
site to her, his eye fixed steadily upon her. From the year
1813 to the year 1817, he sent his love to her (the witness) in
every letter—he knew her every thought. She gave her evi-
dence calmly and collectedly to the last, and the Jury,
believing the evidence she gave, returned a verdict of 2,0001.
for her mistress.—Gentlemen, I shall now read a few pagsages
from some of the defendant's letters.—[The Learned Counsel
here read some of the defendant's letters.]—lle tells her, Gen-
tlemen, that " there is a breeches of his in pledge for nine
shillings, and begs of her to have them secured, as the 18th
would be the last day."—(Laughter.)—Gentlemen, he is in-
debted to my client on the score of these breeches, for
though she did release them for him, it does not appear that
she ever made any use of them herself ; and this, even in
married life, 1 believe, is not always the case. For myself, I
shall only say, that
" When to ease this load of life,
Of private care and public strife,
Indulgent Heav'n grants me a wife,
I'll ask nor wealth nor riches ;
Temper alone is all I'll pray,
Temper like hers, serene and gay,
One who, like her, will give away,
Not wear herself, THE BREECHES ! "
(Loud laughter.)—ln his letter from Dieppe, he tells her, "he
has not one shilling ;" and in another part he says, he got
18 francs (15 shillings English) for some pears that he sold, be-
ing some of the fruit which grew in the garden. The Tower
Hamlets militia was at one time ordered on active service, that
is, they had to march from, London to Bath—(Laughter)—and
while my client sat the victim of corroding care, the defendant
writes her a detailed account of the great perils which lie en-
countered, before he succeeded in getting possession of the inn;
he does not state what loss was sustained, but he particularly.
mentions his having been exposed for some hours to a heavy
shower—of rain—which penetrated through three coats.—(Great
laughter.)—lt reminds me, Gentlemen, of Major Sturgeon's
account of the forced march of Lieutenant Tripe and Ensign
Pattypan from Hounslow to London. According to Mr.
Grady's delineation of character, Gentlemen, the defendant is
a mild, gentle, and amiable young man, who had taken out
his degree in the University. This mild, gentle, and amiable
young man, who took out his degree in the University, writes
thus to the plaintiff in one of his letters :-
4, and I had a bit of a row ; he was bragging of his
money, and of the Lords and Dukes that visited at his house ;
I said I could see none of them when he was dining on the
baked meats at the terrace ; he then got into a passion, and I
quietly knocked him down."
Gentlemen, this is the mild young man ; but then he quietly
knocked him down ! The letter goes on to say, that the Gen-
tleman whom he quietly knocked down stated the circum-
stance to the Commanding Officer, and this he termed
cowardly conduct. 1 know not, Gentlemen, how far our
notions may be raised up 14 the chivalrous ideas connected
with champions and gloves, that we have lately read so much
of, but I protest I do not know what other line of conduct
a Gentleman could pursue under such circumstances. On
the defendant's return to Ireland, his father asked him how
he contrived to live without money ? His father was the
' best authority on the subject, and he knew that he was a beg-
gar. In his letter to the plaintiff, dated 20:1-1 of June, 1817, he