The National Register.
London, England, 1821-12-03 00:00:00

THE NAT ZONAL REGISTER

The Conti thought, tinder theme circumstances, that the
defendant, by pa lug the coats of the application, and
refunding the nureho I ge, would answer the en& of in,-
ju.tiee. The Court would atm) mike au outer, that
10, ntl. could not denonoled in future.

THURSDAY, NOV. 29.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a surgeon and
apothecary in Hulks street, to recover 41. OS. (Id. for drugs sup-
plied to the wife of the defendant during her accouchentent.
Mrs. Hannah Golding was acquainted with the plaintiff; he
was a surgeon and apothecary. Mrs. Ile Schrimer lived with the
with the witness at Brosnpton, and was delivered at her house.
She knew that drugs were delivered to Mrs. De Schrimer, and
looking at the bill, said she recollected many of the articles. The
witness had • conversation with Mr. De Schrimer, who was a
waiter at Brunet's hotel; he said he was not to pay the ph/one's
bill,—his wife was to pay it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Scarlett.—She said the lady, Mrs. De
Schrimer, was now living with the Portuguese Ambassador. She
did not know whether the Portuguese Ambassador kept the
child. She did not think Mr. De Schrinter ever saw the doctor ;
he went abroad soon after the child was born* and came back
again ; he then paid the wirness for the lodging : he told witness
the doctor's bill was a heavy charge ; he did not say he had no
business with the bill, hut that he should leave it for his wife to
pay. She did not know the lady by auy other name than De
Bchrimer. She did nut know the child was supported by the
Portuguese Ambassador, but had heard it was. The c:.ild was
taken from the witness's sister at the age of fur or lire months.
Mrs. Ann Wood said she was the nurse who attended Nina-
De Schrimer during her lying-in. Medicines were delivered
during the time she was with Mrs. lielehrimet. She saw the
defendant two or three times a day. Mrs. De Schrimer called
him her husband. He asked for her as Mrs. De Sehrimer

Cross-examined by Mr. Soulett.—She said Mrs. De kieltrimer
paid her money. She went to her at the house of the Portuguese
Ambassador, and received the money. Mr. Johnson said he
would send his young man up to the house of the Ambassador
to demand payment of his bill.
Mr. •carlett submitted that Cher: was no proof the defendant
was liable to pay this bill. The lady hired ttie lodging, and the
defendant paid for it after his returu to England. It did not
appear she was his wife.
Chief Justice.—Flo treats her as his wife, and if a professional
man is called in and told she is a monied woman, he considers
her the wile of another, to whom lie looks for payment. There
was no valid defence to this action.
_ _ _

The Jury found a vedict for the planadf—Daraages •l. 19s. 6d
Fit litt 1,, NOV. U.

Gl2 AMONT V. BOY ON.

Mr. Marry itt, to counsel fur the defendant, stated, that
this WAS au act' of leaver, brought by the pluintiff, to
recover front the defendant the property in a dog belonging
to the plaintiff, of which the defendaid had got and retained
povvessinu The defendant said, the dog was bit, and that
he lad it. Now he hail ten us twelve a itne►ses, all of whoa
would sear that the dog was iii Cat plaintiff's, possession
long before the di fend:sot even pretended to have lost it.
The Chief Justice recuinineialeit a reference out of Court.
The production of the do; would pr.onsibly lead to cause-
(peaces nut quite suited ma the ii. I:01WD of a Court of
Justice.
The parties consenting, a verdict was taken for the plain.
lilt for our subject to a reference to Mr George
Williams. The &IA to follow the miler of the referee.