The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-06 00:00:00

RIDER r. WOMBWELL.

This was an action on a jeweller's bill, tried before the
Lord Chief Baron at Guildhall, in July last, and in which
a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, with 40(. 15s.
damages, in addition to the sum paid into court.
Mr. Bulwer, Q.C., with leave reserved by the learned
judge, now moved to enter a nonsuit, or to reduce the
damages by such a sum as the court should think fit, on
the ground of misdirection, the improper rejection of
evidence, and the verdict being against the evidence. The
plaintiff was a jeweller in Bond-street, London, and the de-
fendant the younger son of the late Sir G. Wombwell, Bart.
At the time the goods were supplied, the defendant was
19 years of age, and had an income of nearly :-,00/. a year
under the will of his father. When in town he lived with
his mother, Lady Wombwell, and he had also the free use
of his brother's house, at the family Peat in Yorkshire. lle
was well known to the plaintiff, who bad for many years
been acquainted with and se pplied articles to the Wombwell
family. The plaintiff knew that he was the intimate
friend of the Marquis of Hustings, and moved
in society of the first rank ; also that he
had acted as amateur jockey for the marquis,
and that be was in the habit of staying
at Limmer's and other fashionable hotels in London. The
action was for goods sold and delivered ; the defendant
paid Ms. into court, and as to the residue pleaded
infancy, and that the goods were not necessaries. The
articles in respect of which the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff beyond the money paid into court were first a pair
0. fine crystal, rathdy and diamond solitaires, 251., and
secondly, a silver grit chaste antique goblet, with an en-
graved inscription, rg. LW. Thelearned counsel said he first
thought the solitaires were articles for ladies, but the evi-
dence showed that they were used by gentlemen.
Mr. Baron Channell—There is a good deal of resemblance
at the present day between the dress of ladies and gentle-
men. _

Mr. Bulwer was sorry to say that was the case. These
solitaires were fanciful things for linking the wristbands of
a shirt together. They were exquisitely beautiful, the
horse shoe being composed of diamonds with rubies to
represent the nails, and it was not surprising a young man
should covet such articles, but they were not necessaries
for anybody in the world, certainly not for an infant, even
in the condition of life of the defendant. The silver gilt
goblet was intended as a present to the Marquis of Hast-
ings, at whose house he frequently stayed.
The Lord Chief Baron—The jury thought that a gentle-
man with 501 K. • year, and 20,0001. in expectancy, might
feel bound to make some sort of present to a nobleman in
whose house he stayed from time to time, and from whom
he received • great deal more than the value of this
goblet.
Mr. Bulwer observed that the jury had disallowed the
plaintiff for a lady's =ening-bottle and • pair of earrings.
Another ground on which be applied for a rule was that
at the period of this transaction the defendant had pur-
chased articles of different kinds from other jewellers, to
the aggregate amount of 1.300/.
The Lord Chief Baron—Take a rule on both the points.
Ride nisi.