The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-07-30 00:00:00

IRISH LAW IhTELLIORNCE.

COURT OF OF COMMON MEAL Dust"
WiPSUDAT, JOLT tal, MI.

CAILA e. MACNAMARA.
The new trial in this action, which had been fixed
for yesterday, came on before Lord Norbury, and a
Special Jury :
The Jury having been sworn, Mr. Doherty, Counsel
for the plaintiff, applied to the Court to have the wit-
nesses, both for plaintiff and defendant, removed ; lists
were then exchanged, and the witnesses having left
the Court,
Mr. CRAMPTON opened the pleadings, which stated
this to he an action of assumpsit for breach of Mar-
riage Promise. The defendant, in the month of Oc-
tober, 1815, having promised to marry Hariet Caila,
on request. The Learned Counsel stated, that the
plaintiff remained single. There were other courts
varying as to form, and there was another class of
counts which stated, that defendant had promised, at
some future period, to marry the plaintiff on request,
or, if lie failed so to do, to pay her the sum of 5,0001.1
The Learned Counsel further stated, that the defend-
. ant had since married another lady.—The damages
were laid at 5,0001., and the defendant pleaded the
• general issue, that he did not make the promise.
Mr. DOIIIIWIT then rose, and addressed the Jury
nearly at follows :--Gentlemen of the Jury, is this
case, by a combination of events, it is my duty, as Se-
nior Counsel for, the plaintiff, to state the case to you.
It is impossible, Gentlemen, for me to express my deep
regret at the circunistances which have placed me in
this situation, and I feel that it would be impossible
that any efforts of mine could compensate nay client
for time irreparable loss she has sustained, in being de-
prived of the able, zealous, and eloquent Advocate who
pleaded her cause on the former trial. Gentlemen, 1
have not arrogantly sought for this distinction ; the
Gentleman who stated the case on the former trial was
placed in a situation of peculiar delicacy ; lie has
wrongs of his own against the -defendant, and feeling
that an advocate should forget himself in his duty to
his client, leaving all individual feeling outside the
threshold of the Court, ire has honou• ably declined
-being concerned ii the present case. Gentlemen, if it
would lie arrogant in me to seek the distinction of
the situation in which I am thus placed, perhaps it
would be pusilanimous to decline it. Gentlemen of
the Jury, you will, 1 trust, bear with me, should I be
tedious. You are, one and all, the advocates of my
client, and though 1 may not cope in talent with those
gentlemen who ure arrayed against me, yet it would
seem that something of more was requisite ; it would ap-
pear that something of corporal power, some portion of
bodily streagth, was also necessary in the Counsel
who would undertake- my client's case. Gentlemen, 1
must just tell you that the verdict lately obtained
in this case was set aside, on grounds merely legal.
with %%hid' you have nothing to do; and 1 tell
volt, under the correction of the Court, that the
setting aside of that verdict does not, in the slight-
est degree, alert the merits of the case. These is
no part of the manner in which defendant's Counsel
are about to conduct this defence, that I admire,
more than the dexterity with which they have ar-
-1 ranged the case. The Light Troops; Meese,. North
and 11'oulfe, are placed in front, but ere long, rein-
forcements will be pouring in, and you will see the
Prussians hearing down, hut not, 1 trust, in victory.
—(Here lir. O'Connell, Counsel for defendant, en-
tere 1 the Court.—You see, Gentlemen, it is as 1
predicted—reinforceinents are already peering in—
(Laughter.)—titntlensen, in the year 1808, when
very young, my client married Mr. Peter Caila, who
died in the year 18119; they resided at their house,
No. 16, George's-street, Itryanston-squire. Mrs.
('ails subseqnently let that house, and took another
in the smut. street ; she expended 1,500/. in furnish-
ing the horse she had left ; Lady Carrick was her
tenant in it, and afterward's LOrd and Lady Roden.
. In the year tall, time plaintiff was firet introduced to
Sir. litNamara, who, I understand, is a gentleman,
from a remote part of this country, and of a most re
• 'mimeo:o,le family ; he was at the time a Lieutenant ur
Captain in the Tower Hamlets Militia. A friend of
Mrs. Caila bought some of her furniture from her, and
-was accompanied to her (plaintiffs) house by the ae-
fendant. Gentlemen, from that moment he
" Had suarl'd her for his own;"
be followed her like it shadow ; and though' his in-
tentions were nut 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, 1 shall
Tess over his rows, his attestations, his promises of
ittniediate marmiage ; 1 admit that
• Shelistezed,*ebeliev'ti. and fell."
Fertile in excuses, lie wielded his oft repeated promises
to lull her into security; he knew she had the means
of supporting him—she had 30111. a-year herself, and
there was 5000/. settled on her child. The defendant
was not possessed of a single shilling ; lie was conti-
nually in pecuniary embarrassments, as will he proved
by his own letters i he was a beggar in circumstances,
and if his counsel are now instructed to say, as on a for-
nier occasion, that she was his kept mistress, shall I not
fling back the accusation, and tell this beggar, that he
who could Rat keephintself, could not keep another? In
,one of his letters from Bath, in the year 1813, ad-
- 'dressed to my client, and directed Mrs. M'Namara,
In' says, that " he is obliged to qc.it Bath, being tin,
able to buy mourning." Gentlemen, Mrs. Caila's,
stlmild died in the year 1814, and her death was the,
occasion of my client's return from France, where she-
'll's then living with the defendant. On the former
Atrial, the only witness produced on the part of the
.plaintiff. Caroline Exton, underwefte most severe and
long continued cross-examination3M intent' the ablest
Counsel at thefflar, spout any thing having trans•
pirrd that cuuM, in Me slightest degree, impeach the
testimony sbr gave. Her cross-examination commenced
on the 9th of December, and concluded on the 1-Ith ;
for a day and a half swat on that chair, not only
exposed to every questbieh the ingenuity of that
able Counsel could put to bet, but also exposed to the
brow-beating looks of the defendant himself, who sat
directly opposite to her, his eye fixed steadily upon her.
From the year 1813 to the year 1817, be sent Ms love
to her (the witness) in every letter--he knew her every
thought. She gave her evidence calm sad collected
the lost, and the Jury believing the evidence she
returned a Verdict of Two Thousand Pounds.
men, 1 shall •now read a few frees some
-defendant's laiters.--(The Camel here egad

Aso of the
es Om is a breeches

in a letter to the defendant, put a
'as not worthy of being connected
Wtiamaras. But, Gentlemen, of

.on is the language of that Gentleman
who was bred in the University? In one of Isis let-
ters, he says. " there is a pair of breeches of mine
in pledge for nine shilling;" in another we have this
elegant expression, " and I hail a lit of a rots."
Gentlemen, whether the amount of your verdict be
five hundreds pounds or five thousands pounds. it is
more titan probable that the result tt ill be the same to
wv client, as the defendant is a fugitive. Should you
give a verdict for the fell amount at which the da-
mages are laid, perhaps it way be said cf you, as it
was said of a Special Jury who returned a verdict of
10001. In a similar case, that the verdict would amount
to a prohibition, or, if not, that it would tend to taise
that article enormously on the fashionable Gentlemen
of this City. That verdict, it appears, did amount to a
prohibition, for how seldom alo we hear of an action of
this kind being tried in Dublin. You will perhaps be
asked, Gentlemen of the Jury. if this excellent, amiable,
and mild young man, is to be con.letnned to perpetual
banishment ? I ask you, itsnch should be the result of
your Verdict, where is the wan who would deeply re-
gret it ?
The counsel for the plaintiff then proceeded to call
their witnesses, who gave evidence similar its effect to
that adduced on the former trials, and having closed
their case, a discussion then took place as to the pro-
priety of an adjournment, which ultimately took place
to nest day, Friday. On that day the Court swain as-
sembled, and Mr. Sergeant Joy stated the case for the
defendant.
The lateness of the hour at which the trial was con-
cluded, prechttletl the Thibliot Morming Post, from which
we bare riven the :those, from publishing a report of it
the next day. In the evening a verdict of 2,0001. for
the Plaintiff was returned.

f. THE STATESMAN,
letters.)—He tells her, Headmen, the plaintiff having, i
'eeches of his in pledge for tine shillings. final e to it), era
et to have thou secured, as the lilth would with one of the
lay."—(Laughter.)—deatlegten, he owes what description i
the score of these breeches, for though she hn WS! hpa .
tn