The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-14 00:00:00

IRISH LsAW II(TEII.IGENCE.

COURT OF. EXCHEQUER, DUBLIN, less. 12.

The COURT passed sentence upon lEneas Mac
donne'', which was, that he be imprisonet
EIGHTEEN MONTHS.

(From the Second Edition of the Dublin Evening Mail,
Monday, Feb. 11:)
ItcGAltitAllAN V. MAGOIILE.
Judgment in this case was pronounced' this day.
and as the Judges were not unanimous, their 'Lord-
ships pronounced their opinions seriatim. Bann
PENNEFATItht spoke as fellows :—This ,case ha
excited considerable public interest. It is o
hweve,
„
to be decided by this Court, as if no such interest
was felt—as if, in fact, it were an ordinary case of
parent seeking for damages for the seduction of hi,
child. I consider this verdict to have been obtaine('
by conduct unjustifiable, to say no more of it, on th,
part of the defendant himself, and I do .not fin.
that the answering aflidaVit of the defendant
so full and satisfactory in many essential por-
tions of it as to induce me to come to tiv
conclusion that this verdict should stand. I ta,k(
it as of the utmost consequence to the administra-
tion of justice, that neither party in a case shall
exercise any influeue over the . witness of the.
other I take it that the stream of justice must b(
polluted,' if either party be permitted to tamper wit':
the witnesses of the other,- and if one Of the parties
in a case get possession of the other's witness, am
by intimidation, or any other means, .prevent that
witness from deposing, then I take it a. verdict had
under such circumstances cannot stand. In my vier:
of the case, that chaTe has been fully substantiated
against the defendant. I think it must be manifest
that Catherine Alginveeny was the witness of tin
plaintiff. The,case of the plaintiff is this, that twe
letters, alleged to have been written by the defend.
ant, were delivered to Anne M'Garrahan by Win-
weeny. Unquestionably prima facie to make out a
case fully it was necessary not only that the hand
writing should be proved, but also the actual deli-
very of the letters. The plaintiff proceeded and
gave evidence of the handwriting, and there that
portion g the case rested, without calling a
witness to prove the delivery of the letters.—
At the close. of the plaintiff's case a call was
made by Connsel for the defence for the prodte-
tion. of
.this woman, but she was not produced b)
the, plaintiff. The non-production of this witness wre.
relied .on by the defendant's Counsel, and the
plaintiff was taunted with holding her back. Well,
the defendant's case proceeds, and on the cross-
examination of some, of his witnesses, it appeared
that this woman was seen with the defendant's wit-
nesses. What appears at the close of the case i'
Why, that she is produced by the defendant, and
tendered for examination to the plaintiff's Counsel ;
plaintiff's Counsel, however, declined, and I think
properly declined, examining her, and not only from
what appeared to them at the time do I think they
were:right, but from what has subsequently been
divulged. For what has, since appeared ? Why,
that M'lnWeeny was brought to town by defendant,
subpcenned ty him, and lodged in a house in Dublin
with his other witnesses. Was this done by the
defendant because he wanted her testimony himself,
or was it done to keep her from being examined by
the plaintiff. Let those,
.questions be tried by the
result—and -what has the result been ? Whythe
witness vas never examined by the defendant, and
this being the case, it is fair to infer that he got
possession of her to prevent the plaintiff from
examining her. 'lt is clear that the defendant, or
his legal adviser, did not think her his witness, or if
they did, why not examine her_? But why, it may
be asked, (lid he not produce her ? It is said that
her character was blasted—that she was a woman of
such infamous character, one so polluted, that they
could not trust her—when did the defendant acquire
the knowledge of .her pollution ?---when did he
acquire the knowledge of her character? Was it
after he had brought her to Dublin? The Learned
Judge then went on to declare his opinion,
_that she had been kept back for obvious reasons
- .
'by the defendant, and that his plea of her being
unworthy of credit, was untenable, inasmuckas he
bad been proved to have kept up acquaintance with
" that polluted wretch"-Dillon. Now with respect,
continued.the Learned Judge, to the letters which
the defendant admits to have written, nobody can
read them Without at once seeing that they are most
material. One of them, that to Anne, proves a di-
rect intimacy with the plaintiff's daughter, and con-
tains an acknowledgment on the part of the de-
fendant that an intimacy of a very close kind indeed
had taken place between him and the girl. I con-
sider those other letters material in the highest
degree ; and the witness who could give most
information relating to them, has been kept back
by the contrivance of the defendant. I think
the defendant has been guilty also of a suppression
of. the truth with respect to these documents.
It is said. that defendant, in four different places,
denies, the charge made by the plaintiff. If he did
deny it once fully, it appears strange to me that he
should so often recur to It. The first denial relied
on is, that_he is innocent of the charge stated in the
plaintiff's declaration, namely, seducing his daughter
to injure plaintiff's property. With that swearing
the defendant does not appear satisfied, and he goes
on to swear that he never had criminal intercourse
with -the girl. Criminal intercourse is, a matter
combining something of fact, but much more of the
opinion of the person stating the circumstance.—
What one person considers criminal, another may
not. It must be recollected that the defendant is a
priest in holy orders—and we must also recollect that
but for a particular statute, a marriage celebrated by
priest between a Protestant and Roman Ca-
tholic, would be legal, even though the priest
himself should be one of the parties over
whom the ceremony:was performed. It is -charged
that such a ceremony did take place, and that it
was performed. ,by Maguire himself. When*
Jane says I.come -from your victim, Mr. Maguire is
sworn to have replied,, not my victim but-my wife.
„I say, it is highly probable that he might. have con-
aidered that intercourse not of a criminal nature;
and therefore when I find that this fact which is so
prominent in the case has not been denied by the
' defendant, I cannot satisfy my own mind that he
has in any of the four places denied sexual inter-
course. There was another part of the case relied
on the trial, and which planistiff might not 'have
isupposed it possible to controvert, but which,
it appears, the Jury took up very warmly—l
mean the delirery. of Anne M`Garrahan, at Man-
chester. It was attempted to be proved that the story
was all a fabrication. The defendant does not
state that she was not with child even en his belief.
With respect to the letter produced by the defendant
to Anne M'Grarrahan, and which she swore was dic-
tated by him, is that fact and it is a most material
one—is it denied by the defendant ? No such thing.
I am, therefore, I think, borne out by the facts, when
I state my conviction that it was written by the de-
fendant's desire, to answer a particular purpose. On
the whole, I consider that justice was not done, that
the defendant by his misconduct has prevented wit-
nesses from attending, and therefore my judgment is
that the verdict be set aside with costs.
Baron isvCLELLAND followed, and perfectly coin-
cided in all that had fallen from Baron Pennefather..
Baron Surrn then proceeded to deliver his judg-
ment, which differed entirely from his learned
brethren..
The CHIEF BAKON then gave his judgment briefly,
which Was, that the verdict behsayeot aside
with
the
ts
meguire therefore
entire
costs of the action. ie,2.
Gtt •‘

On the 2d instant, two then, who had pre-
viously quarrelled, met at Wargrave, perks, vbere they set
to. Both parties had been contending for come time, when
one of them, whose name WIIS HOGBORNE, received a severe
blow from his adversary, which killed him instantly. What
renders the above fatal occurrence the more afflicting is,
that HOLBORN E was seconded by his father and brother !
A verdict of " Manslaughter" was returned against the
other man, who has been committed to Reading gaol.—
Bath Chronicle.