The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-04-03 00:00:00

A WIFE'S NECESSARIES.

-- -
The foldowine, remarkable cage hag been tried at the
Cork Assizes before Judge Keogh
The plaintiff was Mr. Fitzgibbon, a trailer of that city, and
the defendant Mr. Luke Joseph Shea, of the llennies, Kin-
sale, a gentleman who tins taken an active part ill the move-
ment for the release of the Feniati prisouers.
'rhe action was for goods sold and delivered to the amount
of £47 odd, for the use of his wife, who lives apart from him.
A sum of .10 193. Id. was lodged in court, and his liability
for the balance was disputed on the ground that the .tieles
were not neeessaiies.
Jielge Keogh ol.served that the bill con tiineil inch Penis
as the following :—Two pairs of blankets, one felt square,
French I eildeail, mattress, palliasse. and, again, one French
bedstead, spring bed bolster, two pillows. He thought these
1 ere only necessary articles for f billing one respectable
' bed, and he wished to know what rank of We was the de-
feudal:A
Mr. Coffey, Q.C., replied that he was a large landed pro-
prietor and justice of the peace, and that he got a fortune of
£5,000 with his wife.
Mr. Jellett, Q.v.,stho appeared for the defendant, said he
did not ace what the lady wantcd with a second bed.
His Lordship was if opinio t tl,at when she was compelled
by the acts of her husband, as adjusted, there to leave
his house, she was entitled to live as well under the decant'
stances as she did at home. She was not to be forced into a
lodging house with .die bed and one room.
Alra Shea was examined, and swore that she brought her
husband a fortune id .E.5,0•.,0, and that she found it necessary
to leave him owing to his conduct.
Mr. Jellett pressed upon the Court a legal objection as to
the necessity of the articles, and asked for a direction.
The Judge Ice hied to give it, and idiserved that sufficient
evidence had cidne before Idni to show that the lady had been
obliged to leave her hushanit's bonsc owing to les miscon-
duct, and to take comparatively a humble residence. To
furnish it she required the articles which were bought from
the plaintiff. She was entitled to plenty of sire's, suitable
liceto rank and position, initead of appearing in the humble
garb which she were, lie left it to the jury to say whether
the articles in dispute were necessariem.
The jury found for the plaintiff for £3l Ps. 10.1. and costs.
Ills Lordship remarked that the magistrate or gentleman
who would defend such an action had a great deal of what
he should call it—moral courage.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE,
At the Norwich assizes the cause of " 'rillett v.
Wrightup," has been heard, and was an action for
breach of promise of marriage :
Mr. &diver, in opening the case, said that this was an
action for breach of promise of BISTIAS,O, and he never
kti,w noose in which the plaintiff had been worse Ire sled.
Tito plaintiff was twenty-two years of age, and the daughter
if respectable I art tits, the proprietot a of an hotel at Watton.
The defendant was a farmer, occupyilig a large farm at
Ashhill, about three notes from Watson, and there would be
no question as to the wrong he had done the plaintiff—the
only question would be a• to the amount of damages. The
parties Avcil an near each other that there were very few
letters, and the ease would be proved 5,y the father and
mother of the plaintiff. There was no doubt but that the
parties were engaged, and at the time that the defendant
was paying constant vLits to the plaintiff and making her
presents, theme was a rumour that he was engag,eil to another
lady named Mathews. The defendant, however, assured the
plaintiff's mother that his intentions towards her
daughter were hononrable. About Christmas it was found
out that the defendant had done the plaintiff the greatest
wrong a man could do to a respectable woman The de-
fendant said, when he was taxed with it, that he had in-
tended ell along to marry her, and he requested that her
state might be concealed from her father, and a day was
fixed for the marriage, which was to take place in London.
The dress was bought, the sister was invited to attend the
wedding and act a, bridesmaid, and the chaise area engaged
and ready to start to tike them al to the station when
a letter was received from the defendant, imying that
he was obliged to go to Norwich, and therefore
could not go to London that day, but that he would be
home on the following day and would then explain why
he was not there. Nothing was heard of him after that until
It was heard that he hail married Miss Mathews, to ivhom it
hall been reported that he w-as engaged In February he
WAS married to Slits Mathews, whom lie had also seditc- d,
and a mmith after he became a father, and three weeks after
that the plaintiff, whom he host deserted, was confined. Toe
learned coumel concluded his opening statement with an
earnest appeal to the jury to mark their sense of the defend-
ant's heartless conduct by making the only reparation it was
In their power to award, namely, heavy damages.
The plaintiff's mother was the first witmss called, and
said that her husband kept the C. urge Hotel, at Watton.
Tne defendant used to visit the plaintiff very frequently,
and some time last year witness asked him if it was true that
he was engages! to Miss Mathews. lie seemed angry, and
said " Miss Mathew, I never come here but some-
thing is said about her." Smu after Christmas my daughter
told time the state she was in, and I afterwards spoke to the
defen.lnit. I was crying very much at the time, and so was
the plaintiff, who was with me. I tots! him of it, and he said
there was no reason for rile to fret, as he meant to do
honourably by my daughter. I said, " I hope you are
not going to disgrace her." Ile said. "No. I will
marry her: and if you will keep it front her father for
a few days I will bring a license and explain every-
thing to him." I pro unised I would not tell her rather till he
should come home again. Ile then wished my daughter good
night, and said, "Cheer up old girl, and don't fret, and tell
your mother not to fret." The next day my daughter sent to
him to tell him to come up tor a few minutes because I was
very ill. In reply he wrote that he was sorry he could not
come, as he was going to Donlon, lad that he would ste her
In a few says. This was oaths lath of January last, and he
came on the Wedeesday week following. He saw my delimiter
alone. I afterwards saw she defendant, anil he said he hail
been talking to the plaintiff, and supposed she had told site
what he had said, lie also said that before three weeks were
up her name would be A rightup. Ile said that the marriage
was to take place in London, and asked me who would go
up with her, mid I said her father and, sister. He after-
wards said that she was gone to Norwich to buy the wedding
dross, and when Ile saw it he said he did netlike it, hut after-
wards told the plaintiff it was only his gammon, and that
she was to keep it. The following Monday was the day
tlxed for the w edding. On that day my two daughters and
my husband were ready to start for the station at half-past
five in the miirtiitig. They were to start at six, and the carriage
was ready, but the defendant ,list not come. A note was then
tit to the defendant by the postboy, and in answer he said
that he could not crane at six, but that he would come after
breakfast. Ile slid not ems. but afterwards wrote to tay
that his landlord's agent hail come and he had to go to Nor-
wich, but could see the plaintiff on the following day and
explain why he dia not come. lie never came again, but on
the next Wednesday he married Miss Mathews at St.
Martin's-in-the-Fields. The plaintiff was confined last Sun-
day.
In cross-examination the witness said that she had not-the
slighted suspicion of her daughter's condition until she toad
her in January. The letters from the defendant about his
not being able to go to London to be nuirried, were written
in January. They were not dated, and the envelopes were
lost. Several people notices! the plaintiff's condition after
Christmas. The defendant did not say be was gi Mg to
marry the plaiutiff in the presence of any one but the members
of witness's family, because the defendant wanted it kept
secret.
The plaintiff's father was called and gave similar evidence
to the previous witness, lit cross-examination he said that he
kitew that his attorney had issued a writ in an action for
neduction.
The Lord Chief Justice Royal said that if there was a
second action, it would be well for Mr. Ilulwer to get the
%Knees to give an undertaking that that action would not
he proceeded with, and then the damages could be assesses!
In this action, of course that would be with Mr. O'llalley's
consent.
Mr. O'Malley said he could not consent to anything of the
sort.

The Lord Chief Justice said that if Mr O'Malley did not
cho,.s.-, to adopt this course, the action for seduction could be
triad at the next assizes ; but it would be understood that it
was done by the desire of the defendant's counsel.
Mr. O'Malley said that he most say, with great respect to
his lordship, that it was not lair is put such an option on
counsel, as it subjected him to the remark that he was
desirous of further litigation, or he must assent to the pro-
posal and try the whole question in an action for breach of
prince of marriage, in which his client could not be called
as a wit ,ese.
The Lord thief Justice said that he must tell the jury that
there might be another action, and that that was by the
de tetelant's choice
Mr. O'Malley said it was not by his eh ice, that be bail no
right to make a choice, and that in the whole of his forty
years' experience he had never heard such a proposition
Made to counsel, and that he slid not see why the topic
shoithi have been introduced into this cause.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he did not put any propo-
sition to the learned counsel; he only wished justice to he
din", and he should tell the jtry that there was another ac-
tion pending.
Mr. Bulwer said that he would relieve his learned friend
froni making any bargain, as he would undertake that the
action for seduction should hot be proceeded with.
The case then poeceeiled. The plaintiff's sister was
called, and said she knew the plaintiff was engaged to the
defendant lie told her so, and that they were shortly to he
married.
After Mr. O'Malley had addreseed the jury at some
length for the defendant, the Lord Chief Justice sum-
med up, and the jury retired at twenty minutes past
five, and at ten minutes past six returned into court
, with a verdict for the plaintiff—dams-gee £7OO, which
was received with some applause in a crowded court.

The servants of favourite setresees and einzere in
Pari. are said to do quite a lucrative business lii selling to
the floret girls the bouquets which their mistres4es receive
at the hands of tic-hr enthusiastic admirers; and the flower-
girls sell them over again.