The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-28 00:00:00

. QTLY 28, 1863
THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY LtVli'N'ING,

note, and £25. Deponent further eta.— .

`"4 that she had a pri•

net., in

vate pocket book of entries made by her on fist,..
which appeared the £l5 supplied to plaintiff on that day
After some further statements as to the accounts, the
learned counsel continued that he had sent for the docu-
ments and memoranda papers to inform the Court of the
bona fides of Mrs. Norton's position, and under these cir-
cumstances he believed she had a really good and tenable
case for a new trial. Some of this was objected to as evi-
dence, but a memorandum made by the defendant, even on
the very ground of refreshing the memory of the witness,
made it valuable evidence. He would now ask the Court
to say whether or not he had made out a strong case for the
application being granted ?
Mr. Francis, in opposing the application of the Court,
would recollect that, although Mrs. Norton conducted her
own case, she had all the advantage of learned counsel ap-
pearing, for she made her statements and proceeded as she
pleased in cross-examining the plaintiff; and although the
Court did all it could to stop her, she would go on, and that
being the case, he (Mr. Francis) submitted it would be a
cruel injustice to the plaintiff to grant a new trial. It was a
case of wrongful dismissal, and he had opened it as a case in
which plaintiff was entitled to the full claim for salary and
expenses, unless the defendant could show that she (the
plaintiff) had disobeyed the lawful commands of her mis-
tress. They had succeeded in getting the verdict of the
fury, and he thought the verdict of the jury could not now
be disturbed. If the defendant really wanted to try the case
again, a fresh plaint could 131 issued and the case tried as to
the £l5. Now, the jury had found that Miss Sibley was
wrongfully dismissed by Mrs. Norton, and that she was en-
titled to her salary and expenses. This verdict was conclu-
sive; but, independently of that, there was a perfect answer
to all the objec'ions raised. And as to the first and second
grounds for granting a new trial, they appeared to him to be
one and the same thing, because if his Honour were wrong in
directing the jury that if they had a doubt on their minds,
they must find for the plaintiff.
The learned Judge—l have no doubt of that. It was not
a conclusive finding ; it was accompanied by a doubt at the

time.
Mr. Francis said at the'trial he had ventured to raise the
objection that the defence as to the £l5 could not be gone
into, for it was a matter of set-off, which had not been
pleaded. He confessed that he had considered the subject
since, and had arrived at the same conclusion, with all
deference to the Court. It could not be said well that the
verdict was against evidence, inasmuch as the two ladies
were in court and gave their evidence before the jury ; and
touching the evidence as to the book, he did not suppose
his Honour would disturb the verdict of the jury unless it
could be shown that the evidence really preponderated one
way or the other. The learned judges in the superior
courts did not do so unless from some special reason, such
as he had already mentioned —the balance of testimony.
Lastly, came the question of surprise.
The learned Judge thought that if there had been sur-
prise on either side, there had been surprise on both sides.
Mr. Francis certainly thought there had been on the plain-
tiffs side, for at the time of the dismissal in December his
client marked dewn £5 in the account, when Mrs. Norton
requested her to put down £l5, and it was on that the diffe-
rence took place between them, which was not contradicted
by the Hon. Mrs. Norton ; and sbe had made some mistakes
in dates which did not agree in the affidavit she now sent
forth with her evidence at the trial. Between Sept. 28th
and Nov. 6th all the papers were shown to the jury, and the
explanation given by this young lady was that she did not
get that amount till Nov. 6th, when she entered it as part
of the running account she had commenced from the last
balance.
The Judge thought the only thing in the case was whe-
ther the vouchers were made before Nov. 6th.
Mr. Francis—The Hon. Mrs. Norton had herself said that
she did not dispute any item charged against her was paid.
Although he did not mean to contend that the accounts had
been kept as they would have been by an accountant, yet it
was certainly the account that any young lady would be ex-
pected to keep. Then as to surprise, they would recollect
that Mrs. Norton would not let him (the learned counsel)
have the book for a long while—she kept it back, and all of
a sudden she threw it down. She was rather clever, and
would not even let him look at it, although in a moment
she thrust it in plaintiff's bands, and said, " Don't you see
it here ?" The affidavit, however, shows that Mrs. Norton
was not very careful—certainly not so careful as she might
be, for she swears positively to the 14th for the 15th Oct.
And if a new trial were granted, the Court would have to
allow the question of wrongful dismissal to be gone into
again, no defence at all having been made as to that.
Mr. Macdonald begged to be allowed to go on with the
application, and produce the papers for the guidance of the
Court, and showing the bonafides of Mrs. Norton's position.
After sonic discussion the Court refused, and, in giving
judgment, his Honour said that he did not feel justified in
this case in granting a new trial. There were four grounds
for it advanced—the first was misdirection, and on that
point he considered that the direction was right, and the
jury delivered a conclusive verdict. The vouchers and books
were put in the hands of the jury, and then they found a
verdict for the plaintiff, upon the ground that the matter
was in so much doubt that they were unable to satisfy their
minds as to the payment of the £l5; and that being so,
and the onus of proof being on the defendant, it was proper
to enter a verdict for the plaintiff. As to the two last points,
there was nothing in the point of surprise, because the de-
fendant came to that court to prove her case; and the verdict
could not be said to be against evidence, because the chief
testimony in the case was simply the evidence of the de-
fendant against the evidence of the plaintiff; and as the
onus was upon the defendant, his Honour thought the jury
had done right in returning the verdict they did, for he
would have done the same himself had he been in the jury's
place. It was very unsatisfactory the way in which the de-
fendant had brought the matter forward, and it was exceed-
ingly difficult for a judge to deal with such a case where the
party conducted it herself in the manner that this case was.
Application refused, with the usual costs.