The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-14 00:00:00

. .

emptions in each being Is favour of commerce. My
opinion therefore is, that goods in the hands of a factor
cannot be distrained. and that judgment must, there-
fore, be Eisen tor the plaintiff.
'I be other Judges expressed their concurrence in
Lordship's opinion.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, after judgment bad
been given for the plaintiff, observed, that he wished
tot to he n.l4understood as to one part of the opinion
.be had j•ist expressed. Ile meant to confine the appli-
colon ..f the exemption co::tended for in this case to
fa-tors only, and not to extend it to the case of a ware-
-11: use-keeper, which at present he was not called on to
dvitte.
•

THE ICING v. LitNAJLIRA.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—DvsLix.

This case being called on Thursday, the flth into
lolicitor-General made a splendid speech in bebal
of the prosecutor ; which, from the particulars of the
case being in the recollection of our readers, and from
the length of the report as given in The Dublin Morn-
lag Post, we are compelled to omit. It is enough to
say that the speech is represented as having made a
powerful impression on the Court, the Bar, and the
auditory.
At the conclusion of this speech Mr. Goold, on the
part of Major M'Nawara, rose to reply, and spoke
nearly as follows:—
My Lords.—ln this case lam Counsel for Major
Itl•Namara, one of the defendants, and shall address a
few observations to you, in reply to the animated and
eloquent address which you have just heard from the
Solicitor-General; that address, my Lords, I may be
permitted to say, embraced many topics that bad no
legitimate connexion with the facts of the case. 1
Lbour under some disadvantage, my Lords, in baring
to reply on the instant to the powerful speech which
you have just heard urged with so much ability.
(Mr. 00OLD here commenced speaking as to the as-
sault, when the Chief Justice observed, that it was not
necessary for Mr. Gould to go into the facts of the as.
wilt, but that be might confine his arguments to the
publications tending to obstruct the administration of
justice.) Mr. Goold resumed. I feel obliged to the
Court for the suggestion, and shall confine myself to
those publications. My Lords. on Saturday, the 9th
day of December, there was a trial in the Court of
Common Pleas, for breach of promise of marriage. in
which Mr. Wallace was senior and leading Counsel
for the plaintiff. In his statement to the Jury. my
Lords, Mr. Wallace made use of expressions, as
applied to Mr. Richard 31•Namara, the defendant
in that action, a gentleman most respectably con-
nected, and a Captain in his Majesty's army, which
no gentleman could hear without horror awl dis-
gust. Mr. M‘Nantara was described, my Lords,
as an "adventurer,"—" a fortune hunter,"—" a
needy Lieutenant, with nothing beyond his pay,"
—as " seeking the means of living, and the grati-
fication of his passions without any sense of reli•
i:ion or morality,"—" without even the Roth 's
religion, honour,"—" a merchant dealer in flesh,"
—" a moral monster !" His wife wandescribed se
!' a coerse•minded. purse-proud woman, a woman
erithout youth or beauty, whose wealth he had
dearly earned in an alliance with her." God forbid
that Counsel should be obliged to weigh their
words in golden morales ; but, my Lords, I deny the
right of any Counsel to use personal expressions.
Will the Solicitor-General take upon himself to say
that those expressions were relevant ? Was It not the
bounden duty of the defendant and his friends to
disabuse the public mind which had been so excited
—The speech containing all those injurious ex-
pressions had been made on a Saturday, and on
the following Monday, whilst the trial as still
pending, a report of it appeared in the public papers.
So that here a gentleman complains of a libel, and
. reads a report of a speech attributed to him. contriv-
ing those expressions, which report he leaves nacos-
tradicted. As to Mr. Wallace having made an ex•
planation afterwards, Mr. M'Namara was not in Court
at the time ; but admitting that the expression
" coarse-minded, purse-proud woman," was applied
to a elm, did be give any explanation of theether ex-
pressions? No man, my Lords, more deeply regretted
the outrage that followed than I did; Mr. Richard
AP:Valuers, who committed that outrage. has fled ; if
taken be must be amenable to the laws of his country;
but Major M•Namara denies all knowledge of or par-
ticipatioa in that assault. The first publication on
the subject of that assault was in the Freeman's
Journa,o; Dec. 13, 1820. It was headed " OCT-
Ritas." and described Mr. M'Namara as •to assassin,
stating that he was accompanied by three or four
athletic men, at the time of the smolt; which it re-
presented the more unjustifiable. as • there was not
a 'chalk of evidence adduced to cs.ntradict the state-
ment of Mr. Wallace—that is, that Mr. *Namara was
" a needy Lieutenant,"—" a fortune hinter."-e." a
moral monster."—" a merchant-dealer in flesh !" My
Lords. when the public mind was thee excited. was it
not necessary to restore it to its peeper 7timperstare ?
Was it not incumbent on the parties to bleed the pub-
lic mind, as it were, and reduce it from that state of
fever to which it bad been raised. Mr. Wallace's
speech. my Lords, was the first aggression. Mr.. Wal-
lace dealt pretend to say. that he believes or has heard
that either Mr. M'Namara or Mr. Scott i.4ke ether of
time letter signed " Amino."
(Here the Court being about to rise, the further
hearing in this argument was postponed.)
On Saturday Mr. Goold resumed his argument in
the foregoing case ; after he had done speaking. Mr.
Woulfe addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant
Scott.

.