The Sun.
London, England, 1827-09-10 00:00:00

GALWAY ASSIZES, Am. O.

(From the Dublin Morning Register.)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE..
DOYLE V. CLARIE.
Counsellor BLAKE opened the pleadings. The
case was an action for a breach of promise of mar-

riage. There were different counts : the first was
the defendant's promise to marry on the quest ; an-
other count was, that the defendant promised to
marry plaintiff on the 16th January, 1827; and
there was another count for money laid out in dress,
in which special damages for 1001. were laid. The
damages were laid at 5,0001.
Mr. O'CONNELL then rose and said—Gentlemen
of the Jury, this is an action for a breach of promise
of marriage. The father of the plaintiff was an apo-
thecary, residing in Athenry. He died about 21
years ago, leaving a wife and four orphan children,
the youngest of whom, the plaintiff in the present
action, was then an infant, not able to appreciate
the amount of the heavy loss she had sustained. In
1819 the plaintiff first became acquainted with the
defendant, Mr. Hugh Clarke ; it commenced in a
most respectable way for my client. The acquaint-
' mice was nothing more than ordinary civility till
1822, and in that year the defendant became
marked tin his attentions to Miss Doyle, and at
length obtained her promise of marriage, provided
he could obtain the consent of her mother and bro-
ther. It was manifest from the circumstance I have
related that she could have no fortune, and the de-
fendant was perfectly aware of it. Mr. C.,at the end of
1822, commenced a correspondence with Miss Doyle,
and wrote several letters to her, which were an-
swered by her married sister with the consent of her
mother, none of them by herself. Various reasons
were assigned by the defendant as causes of delay
till 1524, when her brother thought fit to remon-
strate with him. Mr. Clarke wrote a very civil
reply, and stated .that he could not conveni-ntly
marry immediately, and wished to have it delayed a
little longer. The, family refused to listen to any
further postponement, and declared their willingness
to have the match broken off and for ever put an
end to. This was no anxiety to catch at Mr. Clarke,
it was a perfectly deliberate act on their parts, bat
showed no desire to fasten upon him or seek for any
sort of compensation, for he was allowed to depart
as freely as he had commenced the acquaintance.
Gentlemen, you may easily conceive that Mr. Doyle
did not feel satisfied at this treatment; it was un-
kind, ungenerous, and unmanly. In the summer
of 1825, Mr. Clarke resolved to recommence the
acquaintance through the interference of some
clergymen. He met with difficulties of course,
but they met in company again, and at a dinner,
to which both plaintiff and defendant were
invited, he renewed his intimacy, regretted that he
had so long deprived himself of happiness, asked
permission and renewed his acquaintance with the
lady, and again renewed the proposal of marriage.
The treaty being thus set on foot once more, it
seems to be a curious species of capriciousness that
actuated the defendant; he seemed most anxious to
have the treaty renewed, but equally anxious to
avoid its fulfilment, desirous of the marriage taking
place but avoiding the reality of that state. It was
impossible to endure this uncertainty any longer, and
the family resolved to bring it to a conclusion.
When Mr. Clarke saw this, he announced his in-
tention of making a suitable settlement upon her,
and every arrangement was made, the bridal dresses
were prepared, and a minuteness of attention to
every particular exhibited by him, and it was to
have taken place in November, 1826. But just
when about to take place, it was, announced that
Mr. Clarke was ill, and he was attended by an Army
Surgeon; Doctor O'Malley also attended him, and
gave it as his opinion that the symptoms were by no
means so aggravated as had been described.. Ad-
vent approached, when he recovered, ,and con-
sequently the marriage should be put off, as
ao reason existed for a special dispensation;
this brought • the treaty to Christmas, 1826,
at which time he had appointed to come to Galway
to have it celebrated there. The same excuse was
made for his not coming at Christmas, and arrange-
ments were made for the marriage a short time after-
wards; but when the time approached, he wrote a
letter as if from his bed, expressing extreme anxiety
that he could not come as he had promised, and
spoke of his state of health as so desperate that he
believed he would never be able to leave his bed.—
The plaintiff and her brother, on receipt of this
letter, set off instantly to Loughrea, mid found him
at a dinner party !—(Laughter.)—The brother was,
as you may suppose, considerably agitated, and it is
not to be wondered at if be remonstrated against such
conduct in a harsh and personal manner. The de-
fendant expressed his sincere regret at the delay,
and fixed positively on the 16th January as the day
when he would be married, and during the inter-
vening time, he wrote several letters of affection to
the lady. He arrived in Galway on the 14th, and on
15th was again taken suddenly ill !—(Laughter.)—
Mr. D. advised him to call in a physician and have
some advice; but no, he had an utter contempt for
medicine; yet, so ill was he, that he declared to his
God that be could not cross the streets, and at that
very moment he had bespoken a chaise, and at the
hour of nine o'clock at night lie fled from Galway.
Gentlemen, I have detailed to you simply and unaf-
fectedly the circumstances of this case as they have
occurred. There is a curious species of pride about
this man which it is exceedingly difficult to under-
stand, for he had the courage to announce every
where that he was actually married, he told it re-
peatedly, and boasted of having said so, and to add
to the injury which he did her, she rejected an ad-
vantageous proposal made her by a young man in
business in Dublin, and the defendant gloried in the
rejection. Gentlemen of the Jury, you will say as
fathers, as brothers, and as men, whether you
are to encourage this violation of a sacred engagement
—you will say whether you do or not by your verdict.
Gentlemen of the Jury—l have heard as I came
through your streets, that some grovelling defence
of incapacity—(laughter)—was to be preferred for
the defendant, in order to lessen the damages; but
I would say, if his Counsel endeavoured to bring
forward that defence—the miscreant—who could
know that so well as himself, could any person be
so well aware of it as him ? and is it possible to tell
a Jury that a female was not to enter into a contract
of this kind till she had ascertained the particulars—
till a Jury of Surgeons or Matrons bad sat upon the
case.--(Roars of laughter.)—l would hope that the
instructions 'which hie Counsel would receive on
that head would overpower their intellects, and I
would expect that the Jury would inquire of the
Judge, as a former Jury in this Court did—tp mark
their contempt for the wretch bearing the form, but
not havinz the attributes or faculties of a man—
whether of themselves they could multiply the da-
mages laid in the indictment, and whether it was
possible for them to give more than the plaintiff's
Counsel asked. Gentlemen of tho. Jury, there is no
defence to be brought forward. My Learned Friend
will make—and of course he is very capable of so
doing—a powerful appeal to you on behalfof his client;
perhaps lie has been instructed to throw an air of
ridicule over the claim of the humble plaintiff, and
that no art will be left untried to lessen the damages.
But consider, Gentlemen of the Jury, has she not
fallen into scorn and contempt enough already; is
not every finger pointed at her, and does not every
tongue cry out as she walks through your town,
there goes the girl who was jilted by Hugh Clarke—
there she is, the unwedded bride, the unmarried
wife—there, she is, so contemptible and low, that
even Hugh Clarke has turned her into ridicule and
scorn. Perhaps a plea of poverty may be set up
for him, but Gentlemen it will be proved that lie is
the brother and partner of a man worth 60 or 100,000/.
Gentlemen of the Jury, von will spew your detesta-
tion of this causeless and long continued treachery
by your damages, and by punishing the present de-
linquent, you will vindicate society from the possi-
bility of its recurrence.
Mr. Dominick Doyle. brother to the plaintiff, was
then examined and confirmed by his evidence the
chief points in Mr. O'Connell's statement.
Dr. O'Malley was then called and sworn.—ls