For less than a second, Mr Sean Sherwin scooped the jackpot in the lottery that is the adjudication of libel cases in our courts.
But no sooner had Mr Justice O'Sullivan announced damages of £250,000 to the Fianna Fβil national organiser than it was all taken away. As the courtroom gasped and the forewoman of the jury waved frantically, the judge realised his error. The jury had awarded Mr Sherwin £250.
If the first figure had shocked the court, the second left those present gobsmacked. The jury had come down in Mr Sherwin's favour, but they had decided that his reputation was worth no more than £250.
If ever there was a case within a case, this was it. According to Mr Sherwin, the Sunday Independent, in an article published in 1999, claimed he wrongfully solicited money from property developer Mr Tom Gilmartin, for his sister-in-law, who later stood in the local elections.
The jury agreed. And it found this allegation was not true. But it rejected the rest of his argument, including an assertion that the article claimed he had abused his position in Fianna Fβil. And with the award of a token sum, Mr Sherwin's victory was pyrrhic.
But this is small beer compared to the allegations raised by Mr Gilmartin. The larger picture of corruption, sleaze and shakedowns described by Mr Gilmartin was a PR disaster for Fianna Fβil. Party officials were conspicuously absent from the gallery during the trial, and the press office refused to comment last night.
Mr Gilmartin was effectively given a dry run for his appearance at the Flood tribunal next year. He confounded his detractors, who had long predicted he would prove a loose cannon, by an assured performance in the witness box.
The jury disbelieved Mr Gilmartin on the question of whether Mr Sherwin solicited money, but it seems clear that the developer's broader evidence affected the size of the award.
Mr Gilmartin's credibility will ultimately be decided at the tribunal.