The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

00IIRT OF QIIRENII BZNOH.—Fes. 4.

Sittiap at Nii Priu.—(Before Mr. Jll4lOlll Shee end •
Special Jury.)
HALS 5. LOKI) WIRT PAGET.

This was en action for work and Moor, he. The defend.
sat pleaded never iadebfed.
Mr. Pearce was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Macau 157,1
Q.C., and Mr. Mosley Smith for the defendant.
Mr. Pearce, rtalisg the ease to the jury, mad—The
plaintiff is • mister and clecerstor, carryug on betimes
near to Banover-equare, and the action was brought to re-
cover from the defendant the sum of 3111. 4s. 6d., the
balsam of as amount for work dose by the plaintiff at
No. 20, Chapel-street, Grosvenor-square. where the defend.
ant's wife resided. Between the mouths of December, 1881,
sad March, 186!, the plaintiff was seat for oa many
occesime, and by Lady l'aget's directiras wars, rooms
were punted, re-papered and decorated, and a considerable
portion of the furniture was repaired and exchanged. After
the delivery of lals bill, which *mounted to 421.4.. 6d.. he
reesived 101. on amount, leaving the balance which it was
now sought to recover. As the mile bad bees made a
special jury by the dsfeistient, be presumed some 61mes
would be offered ow the part of hie lordship for the purpose
of resisting this claim. It was not for him to anticipate
what that defence would be, and therefore he should eall
evidence to prove that the work wee does by the direstiou
of the deleadaat's wife, and wait to bear the real character
el the defence.

—The „&Ltifi was than tolled, and corroborated the
basted menses mann.'
CroMumbled—l did not know Lady Paget before she
' mestferae, er If 'lobed a Itsehand being et the time I did
the work. I seed her foe the taboos in the aunty mart
in 1861. I don't know what she said there in her evidence,
become I was absent at the time. She pleaded °overture.
My solicitor did not tail me that she swore she had lived
worsts from Lord Henry Paget on a ymurly allowance of
9501. I found out after the work was done that she wee
hetes separate from her husband. She paid the 101. twelve
moths after the work was dose. The servants were my
insolent when I wit for the money, and I determined from
that mid other circumstances which came to my knowledge
to ens her ladyship in the county court.
Application wee made to Lord Hoary by the plaintiff's
whether, by letter, for the balance, to which the defendant's
solicitor replied they were ready to defend soy proosedizip
that might be taken spinet hi lordship.
That wee the plaietira
Mr. Macaulay, in addressing the jury for the defame,
aid be was surprimed that this eaten had been brought
after the prosodies" in the musty court, where Lady
Paget node • statement relative to her present wadies,.
The plaintiff said he was Dot present at the time, sod that
he had not bed the curiosity to ask his attorney, who we
present, anything about it. It was now his duty to lay
before them the exact circumstances of the ease • but
before doing so he could not Telesis from observingespe-
cially as the plaintiff's attorney had not been called, that
he bad a perfect knowledge of the state of things existing
between the defendant and his wife. He regretted that
the plaintiff had been iedneed to cents into court with this
use, without the slightest chance of emcees, sod however
pelletal it might be to the defendant's family to have these
domestic measly brought into a snort of jetties, he bad
felt himself bound teams forward end resist this demand.
It would appear that about saves yam ago, when the de-
(indent was a very young man, he fell Over bead end
can is love with • woman of so character, and
married her. He lived off sad on with her for some
time, bat in 1859 they separated •; and he had never met
her dem. A provide° was made foe bee of 5501. a year by
the defendant's family, and regular documents were draws
cep for the separation. and securing the Fermat of the an-
nual &Dowsers. Ceder these circumstances the defendant's
wife had so right to sledge his reedit; sad brides that.
the articles "applied were certainly sot nammorim, eves if
be had been lithle far her maistenance. It was the only
testae"' where as attempt bad been made to Si the de-
(sodas* liability is • mart of law. He milled
Lord Henry Paget, who dopmed—l am a sou of the Mar-
quis of Angles's. I have so property of my own, and I live
on what my father abeam to give me. I roMvied Lady
Henry is 1868, and we separated in 1859. An snowman of
360 f. per annum was settled on ber, and se far as How It
has been regularly paid is advance. Have sever seen her
ghee our separates It mak
Orees.exantieed—l have est personally paid my wife, but
my soli:item have. I 'mew of her living at No. 90,
Magi-street. I did not she the home for her. I know
nothing about her dem. I believe she moved from Chapel-
street to Sockaley.aquare. I bad nothing to do with the
feirsiehing of the home, or ;iris( her mossy towards It. I
have sot bees to the hoes* as Chapel. street.
Mr. Mtn Morris meted as solicitor ler Lady Henry NO
is 1859. I negotiated the separatism with Meows. Low end
Co., the defendant's attorneys. Sim* November, 1889, abs
has received from me 3501. per sanest quarterly in advance.
Crose-examined—l have been recouped for the 'Somme.
The money was paid to me by Masers. Low.
Mr. Peaces said he meld not resit the defendant's *vi-
deos% and therefore elected to be nommited.
Nosseited accordingly.