BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE

Source: London Morning Chronicle – Tuesday 11 September 1827

Galway Assizes

DOYLE V. CLARKE:-Counsellor Blake opened the pleadings. The case was an action for a breach of promise of marriage. There were different counts: the first was the defendant’s promise to marry on the quest; another count was, that the defendant promised to marry plaintiff on the 16th of January, 1827; and there was another count for money laid out in dress, in which special damages for 100l. were laid. The damages were laid at 5,000l.

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 apothecary, 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 most respectably for my client. The acquaintance was nothing more than ordinary civility till 1822, and in that year the defendant became marked in his attentions to Miss Doyle, and at length obtained her promise of marriage, provided he could obtain the consent of her mother and brother. It was manifest from the circumstance I have related, that she could have no fortune, and the defendant was perfectly aware of it. Mr. Clarke, at the end of 1822, commenced a correspondence with Miss Doyle, and wrote several letters to her, which were answered 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 1824, when her brother thought fit to remonstrate with him. Mr. Clarke wrote a very civil reply, and stated that he could not conveniently 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, but showed no desire to fasten upon him, 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 unkind, 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 intention 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 Dr. O’Malley also attended him, and gave it as his opinion that the symptoms were by no means so aggravated as had been described, Advent approached, when he recovered, and consequently, the marriage should be put off, as no reason existed for a special dispensation: this brought the treaty to Christmas, 1820, as which time he had appointed to come to Galway to have it celebrated there. The same excuse was male for his not coming at Christmas, and arrangements were made for the marriage a short time afterwards but when the time appointed, 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, and found him at a dinner party! (Laughter) The defendant 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 intervening time he wrote several letters of affection to the lady. He arrived in Galway on the 14th, and on the 15th was again taken suddenly ill! (Laughter.) Miss Doyle 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 he 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 he fled from Galway. Gentlemen, I have detailed to you simply and unaffectedly, 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 understand, for he had the courage to announce every where that he was actually married ; he told it repeatedly, and boasted of having said so ; and, to add to the injury which he did her, she rejected an advantageous 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. My learned friend will make-and, of course, he is very capable of so doing-a powerful appeal to you on behalf of his client ; perhaps he 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 he is the brother and partner of a man worth 60 or 100,000l. Gentlemen of the jury, you will show your detestation of this causeless and long-continued treachery by your damages ; and, by punishing the present delinquent, you will vindicate society from the possibility 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.- Is acquainted with the plaintiff since 1824, and was first introduced to the defendant in December, 1826; on the 8th of January, 1827, first heard of the approaching marriage ; prescribed for the defendant in 1826; and in November told him the less medicine he took the better it would be for him; his only complaint was an affection of the stomach. Met him on the 14th of January at plaintiff’s house, and at that time he appeared to be labouring under some peculiar affection, which witness says is indescribable ; after dinner the defendant slept for a while, which completely removed his complaint; when he awoke, he sung several songs, and appeared quite gay. Cross-examined by Mr. Keating.- Defendant was attended after witness left him by some other medical men ; known all the plaintiff’s family, and went to Loughrea as a mutual friend to both parties ; did not go there to administer either a ball or a bolus; was anxious to have the intended marriage arranged.

Mr. Keating .- Doctor, may I ask what you prescribe for this complaint, which you term indescribable ?

Witness. Give me a guinea, and I’ll tell you.-(Roars of laughter.) Witness sings a tolerable good song; one of those sung by defendant was ” Polly Hopkins.” Mis Doyle declined singing the lady’s part, and witness sung it ; called the defendant ” silly Mr. Tomkins,” which was some of his part of the duet.

The case of the plaintiff having been closed, Mr. North rose, and addressed the jury as follows:-

Gentlemen of the jury,-I do not much admire this species of action, any more than the actions for criminal conversation which our laws and the jurisprudence of England sanction, from the universal sentiment entertained by our neighbours on the continent of their being most barbarous and disgraceful to the country ; and when they wish to show their superiority over Great Britain, they point to those disgusting
transactions of private life which are made the subject of public observation through the columns of a newspaper-transactions which should be ever veiled by the curtain of delicacy and privacy, and screened from the public eye. I participate in this feeling of disapprobation ; but, gentlemen, however that may be, the subject for our consideration is, whether these actions are allowed, and certain it is that they are permitted by the laws of the land. Gentlemen of the jury, in most actions of this kind there are circumstances which, when the case comes before the jury and the public, are calculated to disguise whatever is offensive or disgusting in them. The defendant is generally a gay, gallant, attractive, captivating young man, and the lady interesting, confiding, and loving. She yields to the charms of the gentleman, because they are such as from the natural feelings of the sex are calculated to secure the affections of their hearts. He is a young man with the flush of health in his cheek, with a sparkling eye and captivating glance; these are the things which produce impressions on that sex, and will so long as it may please providence to make us what we are, and so long as it gives those feelings to young ladies which teach them there are great though mysterious purposes of nature which they are destined to accomplish. Gentlemen, am I entitled to say in this case there is no love at all? Love for Hugh Clarke! Albeit my time for such sensations is long since past, I might as well fall in love with her as she with him. Gentlemen, such sensations could not exist between them, for it is contrary to the laws and ordinances of nature, to connect youth, and health, and loveliness, on the side, with age, and disease on the other. This is an attempt, if I may be permitted to use figurative language, to change the scythe of Death into the torch of Hymen ; for Hugh Clarke seems to be labouring under a series of illness from the moment this intercourse commenced, down to the time when it was attempted to force upon him a marriage, from which reason and nature revolted, as did the unfortunate victim himself. Gentlemen, if there was no love in the case, we must trace to some other motive this desire to bring about a connexion, and it is not difficult to find out the motive that Doyle had in view.

His lordship then charged the jury at considerable length.

The jury retired, and in about half an hour returned with a verdict of damages-One thousand pounds, and Sixpence costs.