The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-15 00:00:00

I left Edinburgh from compulsion, and not from the

motives you afiribute. -
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—Who compelled you ?

Witness—You oid.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—l had the smaller room
of the two, and you had the other one—eh ? Wit-
ness (sharply)—Did you think I was going to sit
in a bedroom and let the waiter bring up my break-
fast there ? Was not at all afraid of you. I left

Edinburgh because you behaved badly to me.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—ls your way of settling
accounts to elope 200 miles (laughter) ?
Witness—No, I never said I should go.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—You claim salary. I
won't ask you any more questions. I'm quite sure
any sensible man of business will agree with me in
what I said, that you were " a foolish child ; and
that if your father were not an attorney, neither of
US would have been here to-day."
The learned Judge—Do you wish to state any
thing to the jury ?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—Yes, I particularly wish
to contt':olict some of her evidence. On the 12th
September
I went to the ladies to whom she re-
ferred me, and oe spoke very well of her, and the
other lady seemed extremely unwilling to answer
for her temper. Throe was no dispute as to her
power and ability to teach, but it was her temper.
On the 13th September went round with her to
pay the tradespiopie and introduce: her us the re-
sponsible person. I sent the £25 on the 11th
October, and found that she had spent tLe whole
of that, and then I gave ker three £5 notes: from
hand to hand, which she got rid of at the rate of
£1 per day, and the story she wishes you to believe
is, that from the Bth October to 7th November she
had nothing, and that I allowed her to continue
keeping house without a farthing at £1 a day.
The learned Judge—Were the bills all paid when
you left the Isle of Wight ?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—No ; I advanced the £25,
and her own account of herself is that I allowed her
to spend £B5 without even seeing the books. And
when she began the accounts she omitted the Octo-
ber entries from hand to hand. She still acted as
governess up to the 13th December it appears, and
what I dispute is that she has already received that
omitted entry of £l5. Her quarter's salary would
be £l2 10s., and the other ladies who employed her
only gave £25 a year, and if I were to pay that
run-away journey there would still be something
due to me.
Further eviience was proposed by the Hon. Mrs.
Norton, which was objected to on the ground of
irregularity, and at length Mr. Prideaux, the
accountant, was sworn, and gave evidence showing
discrepancies in the accounts as kept by Miss Sib-
ley, there being two separate sums of £l5, but only
one accounted for, being omitted in the abstract,
and in fact the whole thing was a confusion. Wit-
ness added that the accounts, as rendered, weber
altogether inaccurate.
Mr. Francis, in reply, told the jury that it was
clear that the plaintiff was fully entitled to her
salary, inasmuch as the defendant had failed to esta-
blish any case against his client for wilfully dis-
obeying the lawful commands of her employer.
The learned Judge observed that there were two
points in the case—the one was, whether Mrs. Nor-
ton had dismissed the plaintiff; and if she had, was
she justified in so doing. If she had dismissed the
plaintiff, and was justified in so doing, then she
would not, be liable for the expenses of this young
lady in coming from Edinburgh; but if she had
not, and the plaintiff had left of her own accord, the
case would be different. The other point was,
whether the plaintiff received the £l5. Mre. Nor-
ton swore positively that at the Isle of Wight she
handed the plaintiff three five-pound notes on the
14th or 15th of October. His honour was of opinion
that it had been paid; but, however, that was a
matter for the jury. At all events the plaintiff
was entitled to a quarter's salary, unless the
jury considered that it was misconduct on the
part of the plaintiff in refusing to go through
the accounts on the 22d of December, and that
she refused to obey the lawful commands of the de-
fendant, then she would not be entitled to anything ;
but, on the contrary, if there was no disobedience,
she would then be entitled up to the time that she
left. Again, if she had a right to consider herself
dismissed, and was dismissed, then she would be
entitled to expenses, and it was entirely for the
jury to say whether the £l5 had been given credit
for or not.
The jury retired, and after about 20 minutes' de-
liberation, said—" We find a verdict for the salary'
for the plaintiff, but the £l5 seems to be doubtfelt
and we think Mrs. Norton is entitled to the benefit
of that doubt, as being more likely to be correct.
That is, we think there have been two payments, of
£15." Upon this a long.discussi,pn ensued between
the jury, the learned judge, the learned counsel,
and the Hon. Mrs. Norton, when at length the jury
finally, upon putting some further questions to the
plaintiff touching the accounts, gave a verdict for
the plaintiff, by stating that they could not sal
whether the money was paid or not, which was held
to be equivalent to a verdict for plaintiff.
Lord Dufferin, addressing the Court, said that
his impression was that the jury believed that MIT.
Norton had paid the money.
The learned Judge—They did not say so fairly ;
t was a matter of doubt with them.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton then said she should give
'ormal notice of appeal on another day, and move
'er a new trial, for the decision was exactly con-
rary to what had transpired in evidence.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

~__--_----a~.--- ---

LEEDS—TUESDAY.
To-day there was a moderate supply of wheat, which
met scarcely any demand, at rather lower rates than the
previous week. Barley nominally the same. Oats, beaus,
and other articles dull, at late rates.