THERE was a touch of the Gate Theatre's current production in Court No 4 yesterday. We were all Waiting for Eamo rather than Godot, but Eamo didn't come either.
The abrupt conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence in the libel action by Mr Proinsias De Rossa seemed to catch the defence by surprise. After a fruitless search for their number one witness, they returned to tell Justice Moriarty he could not be contacted and the judge reluctantly gave the jury an early afternoon.
Any racing enthusiasts among the jurors would have been delighted with the reprieve, coming as it did five minutes before the start of the Cheltenham Champion Hurdle. But the judge had the look of a man who was not about to rush around to the bookmaker's shop.
Though relentlessly courteous, he has made no secret of his annoyance at anything which unnecessarily prolongs the case, and he broke the adjournment to the jury like a chaplain relaying bad news from the front. He told them there had been a misunderstanding about the number of plaintiff's witnesses and the defence had not been able to contact Mr Dunphy in time.
Mr Pat Rabbitte, had resumed the stand earlier in the day to accuse Mr Dunphy of "throwing around allegations like confetti at a funeral" in the disputed Sunday Independent article. "It was the most vicious, vindictive and scurrilous attack on a politician that I have ever read in my time in politics."
The junior minister was quickly into his stride. Mr Dunphy had been "egging the pudding". The defence was engaging in "post-hoc justification". Alleging Mr De Rossa's knowledge of "special activities" was like accusing Neil Jordan of complicity in the Collins assassination.
Pressed on what efforts he had made to establish the source of the Moscow letter, he scoffed at the idea of "chasing across the Urals" in the middle of the 1992 general election campaign. Yes, he had discussed The Irish Times report on the Moscow letter with his friend and the newspaper's then Moscow correspondent, Mr Seamus Martin. But "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Mr Feeney," he replied emphatically when counsel questioned his memory of his conversations with Mr Martin.
Relaxed and seemingly enjoying himself, Mr Rabbitte gave Mr Feeney a crash course in Workers' Party politics. "God bless your innocence," he began in reply to a question as to whether he couldn't have picked up a phone and called Sean Garland after the 1992 split. Such suggestions did not belong to the "real world", he said.
Only once did he seem discomfited when discussing Mr De Rossa's reported comments in an Evening Herald interview, he said examination of any party's "entrails" would show some connection with crime. He gave examples from Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, but when counsel put it to him that leaders of those parties had never suggested, as Mr De Rossa had, that the links damaged their parties "beyond retrieve" Mr Rabbitte was briefly subdued.
Ms Liz McManus was the last witness for the plaintiff. "Proinsias is an honourable man," she began, with uncomfortable echoes of Mark Antony, but she assured us that not only Democratic Left; but the State at large was lucky to have him as a leader.
She said the party leader was "a man of certain reserve". He did not talk much about his hurt at the Dunphy article, but "a light went out in him".
Some people furtively searched the features of Mr De Rossa for signs of the light, but the courtroom was too dim to see.
