The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-08 00:00:00

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT.

Before D. Heath, DR., Judge.
SWEEPING CHIMNEYS Pow A DUKE. Cues T.
THE Dues or Bill NSWICIL.—TbiS was an action brought
against the Duke of Brunswick, for the recovery of
101. 12s. 6d. alleged to be due to the plaintiff, a master
chimney-sweeper.—Mr. Warneford, on behalf of the noble
duke resisted the claim on the ground that the plain.
tiff bad broken contract, and through his negligence
his highness had sustained damage.—Mrs. Cur, plain-
tiff's wife, deposed that she kept the trade books, and
that the bill delivered for the amount now sought to be re-
covered, which commenced in March, 1844, was correct.
There waxen agreement (produced) between his highness and
her husband respecting sweeping the chimneys while the
duke occupied the house No. 38, Bryanston-square, but she
knew of none since be had resided at Brunswick House.—
W. Mathews, in plaintiff's employ, said that he had been in
the habit of sweeping the duke's chimneys, both at
Bryanston.square and Brunswick House. —The plaintiff
stated that in March, 1844, he bad a written
agreement to sweep the duke's chimneys in Bry-
anston-square, at 21. a year. In March, 1846, that con-
tract being then concluded, and his highness having re-
, moved to Brunswick House, he told the secretary that he
could not sweep chimneys, and be answerable for fires in
them, under 61. 51. a year. This concluded the plaintiff's
case.—T. Newson, footman to the Belgian minister, deposed,
that in the years 1844 and 1845 he was in the service of the
Duke of Brunswick, and remembered dunes the latter year
the kitchen chimney being on fire twice. The cause of the
fires, he believed, was through the chimney not being pro-
perly cleaned, as it had two funnels ; and on looking up
once, while the sweep was there, he saw that he only put
the brush up one of them.—Elizabeth Kisby, the duke's
cook, blamed the sweep for the fires; and he, in return,
blamed her. The duke was for the fires summoned to
Marylebone police-office, and fined in penalties altogether of
51. 2s.—Mr. Oddy, the duke's secretary, stated that, on en-
tering his highness's service, he heard of the dispute
between the duke and plaintiff. About 18 months ago the
plaintiff called at the house with his account, when wit-
ness told him that the duke considered he (the
plaintiff) was indebted to him 51.25., money he bad paid
for the chimney catching fire, and that the duke
would hold him to his contract of 21. a year, and his liability
for fires. The plaintiff then went away, and up to the pre- I
sent time continued to sweep the chimneys. The cook,
Elizabeth Kisbv, who could have proved that the fires origi-
nated through the plaintiff's servant's negligence, was un-
fortunately out of town.—The Judge said that a contract
had been entered into in 1844 for the plaintiff to sweep the
duke's chimneys at 21. a year, which would be three years
last March, for the plaintiff after being told that the duke
would hold him to that contract had still continued to do
the work, and be must consider under those terms, With
respect to the plaintiff's liability for the fires, he could not
allow any set-off, but if the duke could establish that fact he
could bring an action against the plaintiff for the recovery
of the sums he had paid.—Verdict for the plaintiff, 61.,
and costa.