The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-05-30 00:00:00

THE SIATF.SMAN.

-sy Si • John frus;leto. a irk rade. plaee in rho herein.: s
he kept a raft. en Rid i: would be proved that, in the
absence of his wife. Sir John 14.,t le k-pt up an intimacy
with this woman. intrieln it her to his horse, wiser
she drank of his 'favourite heterave. whi•key rim h,
and was frequently mat ht lois lady irsitle her oYn
duurs. Lady Doyle wags limited to the ...eiety ut
reeruitinz s!.rieanta awl other low romp;!nv, and n; '
complaining f this innit, h-r eiciaimed,
• VRal 3 your aristuenitic pride.- tin our o..easi..m.
when a servant died of fever in Lis !Anise, he refused
to show his wife perasis.ion to gait it, in order to es-,
cape the contagion. his ismaluct was besides most
reprehensible on varlets* occasions, as an i;,,tauer nit
which, he starred his Icily to travel alone :11 a tunituiri
stage coach, wills nu other esciort than a dasiiiii,c will
tare aitie•sle-catup. What nes the cundw tof the de-
fendant ? Ile had not, it would appear, seen Miss
Bryan for eihteen months pret ioit• to her marriage.
When she was between 13 and I I years old, I.e had
indeed lisco.ne acquainted with her, at a time when he
r. turned front school, and wet at, nit to enter the Cid-
rersity. The sister of her prrceptres, was the female
assoc ate of 3164 Browne, his sister, and the ars
quaintance commenced hetween the parties. Ile after-
, wards, it wait he ac!..:tuwledged, .4W her frequently,
aud admired her, as it was intposs:hle fur him out its

j do: he knew her fatoi;y, o lie re he 64041 frequently,
and by niesto he was esteetne:l a+ a yoting gentleman
lof the be.: rinciples. After a ,•on..ulerable laps• of
tine, he accidentally inet a ith 1.:1111• Doyle, and read
in her co atenanre the et uel and undeserved treatment
she rapt rit•necd from her I,u-baud, it Int, upon ev•-y
occasion, took an opportunity of deserting his wife,
leaving her w!tule months in a s..ate of solitedi nn

appratannt t he sung a bacchanalian song after supfer
‘vit.i.-sa's relatives, the Misses Slierhy's, and hiniself.:
dined frr.itivirly at Sir John l'ode's. I his evidence'
was not cress-rxaMittrti;auto ('curt, he
applied to the defendant's agent for his travelling ex.;l
penses from Cork, which were ()carted him the
Jit4l.le.
3liellai.l Murphy, Esq. exaniined by Mr. rt ear
Knew the plaintiff a long time before and since his
marriage; heard him frequently declare himself the
happiest man in the tvorld in his wife : recollects no
conversition with Sir .1. Doyle respecting his having
no children, or his having expressed himself dissatis-
fied in consequence.
On Mr. 31urpli)'s cross-examination by Sir 11. Ma-
san:To, he stated. that in his money transactions
with Sir John Dny!r, he alit s found him strictly
limiourable and Lir; ght.
The marriage settholirat of Dominick Geoffrey
Browne, of Castle Mount tiarrett (defendant's
telusr). was herr proved, by which it appeared, that
the pro% ision f Lis younger children a wed to
11.41001., and that there were seven persons, his off-
spring, claiming this 44444 irty, via., three daughter•
and four s ois, of which Lttrr the present defendant
was one. This settlement as produced to show the
inability of defendant to p..y heavyilaniagi a.

A wittic”, of the came of John lietertun, woe
c 311141, lint did out apps:', upon which the defence
closed.
Mr. Serjemit Ilearox to evidence on the part
of the plaintiff. Ile coni:n-si!ed on the testimony ad-
duced on the heftier, which he said failed of pro-
iltwimr the etfeet which had been e•giectrti from the
-drools at lof his Learned Friend, Mr. North.

moo ppra o
He did not wish for rl-i.lio-tive damages against the
toilful-woo:oft. defendant; he declared to Hod that such
was nut lois feeling. Ile could not hut deprecate the
turn given to the di-fence by endeavouring to associate
the nallle of his client with cruelty and immorality,
which hr maintained failed in its intended application
by the evidence produced to stostotin it. A sneer had
been east upon his client reo.pectieg his age, thereby
endeavouring to skew that his years were dispropor-
tionetl to those of his wife. It hid likewise been said
that a fool at forty was a food fur life ; he fully granted
tile position generally, but he denied it in this in-
stance; his client was lint 3.2 when he married; there
Was no folly in the contract ;it was an union of tual
affectiou between the parties, and sanctioned by the
fall approbation of the yellow lady's relative.. The
hopes and vien a of two respectable families h tee I•ere
ruined by the deceitful conduct of the defendant, std
fur that conduct hr culled for damages against him, so
a reparation for the injuries he hail inflicted. lie threw
hack with tlioalain the atroc' calumnies atteniosol
to be coupled with the name and character of Sir
John Doyle ; he has been dared to route forward aid
loook for damages for his violated righta; he has bests
challenged to come before a Jury, to seek for reparative.
which his enr ttt it os denied lie had any claim to ; and it
has been whispered that he would never taco a .1
llin of his eu try f 'ad that if Ise-iIW, his
be placet in such a point of view ns would entitle the
oluesioda to a verdict. He would ask his learned
frl'end, ether there was any thing in the evidence to
prove tiqit his client had been culpable in a single ie.
ganef ? Ile would venture to say,tliat the gentlemen
of the Jury would pronounce, by their verdict, that
Sir John Doyle had been calumniated—basely cm
lumniated. The defendant had enoleavonred to prove
that it was a meritorious act to rescue Coe lady from
the cruelty of such a monster as her husband ; but
how was that cruelty proved ?..-Why, that she hail
been banished to Blcork- ock—pretty nearly such a
solitary village as the watering-place of the same Name
near !Isis city ; that a boot-scrubber had proved his
having heard Sir John Doyle and his lady scolding in
French, and that she was once found in tears when
writing a letter; this was the monstrous barbarity
complained of. Ile would not say that a woman's teen
was a prof of her misery; Tony Lutupkin, in the play,
on enquiring why his aunt wept on reading a hook,
was answered, that she liked it so well it made her
cry; writing the letter might have the same effect so
Lady Doyle. Surprise had been expressed why none
of the females of Sir John Doyle's family had been
produced to prove their domestic happiness; be
could not advise such a proceeding; lie could
never think of bringing forward tb. venerable pa-
rent of the lady, nor the niece of his client, a girl
of fifteen years of age, to subject their feelings to
the ordeal of a cross-exatuivation. The next charge
was his connexion with a foreigner, which, with
the effrontery of a ilohli, r, he had the impudence
to avow even before his marriage, without incurring
the displeasure of his intended wife, or her family.
It was however creditable to him, that after having
brought this Portuguese lady to a foreign land, hr
_