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

NOES-67.

Adam,W. P. Fortescue, C. S, Northcote, Sir S. H.
Angerstein, W. Gallwey, Sir W. P. Paget, Lord C. E.
Atherton, Sir W. Gibson. T. M. Palmer, Sir R.
4.4 ring, H. B. Gladstone, W. E. Palmerston, Viset.
Baring Thos. Geo. Handley, John Peel, F.
Bar ttelot, CoL Hartington,3larquis Price, R. G.
Bass, M. T. Headlam, Thus. E. Pritchard, John
Bentinck, G. W. P. Henley, J. Proby, Lord G. L.
Bonham-Carter, J. Hervey, LordA. Puller, C. W.
Bouverie, P. P. Hodgson, It. Scourflelo, J. H.
Bridges, Sir B. Howard, Hon. C. Smith, M. T.
Brown, J. Howes, E. Stansfeld, J.
Bruce, H. A. Butt, W. Stuart, Col.
Cardwell, Rt. in. E. Ingham, R. Treiusis, Hon. C. H.
Cave, S. Jermyn, Earl Villiers, Rt. Hon. C.
Clive, George King, J. K. Watkins, Col. L.
Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Kinglake, A. W. White, L.
Colthurst, Sir G. Kingscote, Col. Wood, Sir C.
Cowper, Hon. W.F. Kinnaird, Hon. A. Wyndham, Hon. P.
Duncombe, W. E. Knatchbull-Hugess
Duudas, Sir David Lefroy, A. TELLERS.
Du Pre, C. Martin,J.
Fellowes, Edward Mildmay, IL Brand, H. B.
Fitzroy, Lord F. Newdegate, C. Dunbar, Sir Wm.

The Hon. Mrs. Norton and her Governess.

---10-

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT—TUESDAY.
(Before Francis Bayley, Esq., Judge, and a Jury.)
SIBLEY V. THE HON. CAROLINE NORTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Miss
Mary Sibley, of 54, Doughty-street, .against the
Hon. Mrs. Norton, of 3, Chesterfield-street, May-
fair, to recover the sum of £lB 6s. 4d. for educa-
tional instruction to the defendant's two grand-
children.

The case excited intense interest, and the court
was crowded throughout the hearing.
Mr. Francis, barrister, appeared for the plaintiff,
and the Hon. Mrs; Norton (who was accompanied
by her nephew, Lord Dufferin) conducted her own
defence.

- -
The learned counsel said that he had hoped that
the Hon. Mrs. Norton would have had some profes-
sional assistance so as to have given him (the
learned counsel) an opportunity of conferring with
the advocate beforehand, with a view to a settle-
ment of the case.
The Hon. Mrs Norton—l have a sworn accountant
here, who is the proper person in the case. He is
a professional accountant, and this is an attorney's
case, for Miss Sibley is an attorney's daughter—
they have chosen to bring me into court, and I am
not going to have professional assistance to make a
speech against my nursery governess.
Mr. Francis then addressed the jury, detailing
the facts of the case, from which it appeared that
the plaintiff had been for some years previously to the
autumn of last year employed as governess; but re-
quiring a situation in Sept. last year, she adver-
tised, which brought her in communication with the
Hon. Mrs. Norton, and she was engaged to edu-
cate two of her grandchildren, and terms were
settled on the 4th of September. The plaintiff
was also to keep the housekeeping book, and
to check the tradesmen's bills. She proceeded to
the Isle of Wight, and had charge of the two young
children; and subsequently in the same year the
Hon. Mrs. Norton, the children, and the governess
were all staying at an hotel in Edinburgh, and Mrs.
Norton required the accounts to be gone into at 12
o'cliack at night, and wished the plaintiff to put
down the monies she had received, when some un-
fortunate differences occurred between the two
ladies, with some little exhibition of temper on both
sides; and at length Miss Sibley, not satisfying
Mrs. Norton as: to a sum of 135, which was said
had not been accounted for, the plaintiff was told
that if she remained any longer in the place it
would be at her own expense. Mrs. Norton then
went to Portobello, and the plaintiff had to get to
town.- In January she made an application for her
salary„ which had been refused. Plaintiff did not
claim for wrongful dismissal, but for the bare time
she had served. The plaintiff had some tradesmen's
books with her which she took away until she had
time to look over them. Mrs. Norton said, " You
must put down £15," whilst the plaintiff said she
would not, because she had not received it, which
was the whole cause of the dispute between them.
Miss Sibley was then called and examined. She
confirmed the whole of the learned counsel's state-
ment, and said she had been engaged at a salary of
£5O a year to educate the defendant's grandchil-
dren, and to superintend the household matters, and
keep the accounts. Entered on her duties on the
9th of September, and proceeded to the Isle of
Wight, and continued to educate the two children
up to the 22d of November of the same year.
Stayed at the Isle of Wight, and went to Scotland.
Mrs. Norton asked for the accounts, and witness
had them all fair and ready with her account-books
and everything, for her to audit. She said on look-
ing over the accounts that she had given
witness a sum of £l5, and witness replied that
it was £5, upon which a dispute arose. Wit-
ness had it noted down in her diary, and used every
entreaty and argument to convince Mrs. Norton,
and at length said that she would present her with
the £lO in dispute out of her (witness's) salary, but
Mrs. Norton would yield to nothing, and then plain.
tiff refused to let her have the books, and when
witness rose on the following morning they had all
gone to Portobello, leaving her behind.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton cross-examined the plain-
tiff—Did you on the 22d of November write me
this note, complaining that my grandchildren were
too much for you, and gave warning, which I ac-
cepted, and then afterwards say that your note
would not bear that interpretation upon it ?
Miss Sibley—l don't remember.
The learned counsel—Hush ! don't answer.

The Hon. Mrs. Norton—You can't say hush to
the witness. (To the witness)—Did you say my
grandchildren were too much for you P—Witness—
I don't remember in the month of November. I
think it was in December. Can't say when you
accepted it as a notice to leave. I don't say that I
kept house for you a whole month without a single
farthing.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton (warmly)—l am sorry
your father brought you here to-day. I'm sorry
for you, and I am sorry for myself. The entries
you make don't tally in the abstract, with the en-
tries in the body of the account. I never heard of
such a case being brought into court. When I re-
turned to the Isle of Wight, did I on the 11th of
October find that you had spent the whole of the
£25 I gave you ?—The witness—Yes, the books show
that it was spent. Witness had received a Linsey
dress as a present from the defendant from Scotland,
which cost £4 ls.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—And was it not changed
from one colour to another to humour you, because
you said it would better suit your complexion ?
Witness (smiling)—lt was changed.
After some further interrogatories,
The Hon. Mrs. Norton said she did not dispute
one fraction of the plaintiff's statement as to what
she had spent—namely, £B4 out of £lOO, but the
question was as to the £5 given on Oct. 14, which
did not tally in the abstract. (To the witness)—
How did you pay away these moneys P Witness—
The books will prove. The witness then proceeded
to read the whole of the items. Two halves of live
pound notes, Sept. 28; Nov. 6, three halves; Nov.
10, four halves ; Nov. 15, £10; the 17th received
again £lO, &c. ; £B4 in the total.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton (with emphasis)—No one
disputes she received £B4, but she received £l5
more than is accounted for (Miss Sibley, smileu).
It is not a laughing matter. It is a very melan-
choly matter. Did you not, on the 22d of Septem-
ber, when I returned from the Duke of Rutland's,
refuse to go through the accounts at all ? Witness
—I never refused; was willing and anxious and
earnest to do it.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—Did you or did you not
say, " I won't ; who cares for you and you rotten
money P" Witness—l have no recollection of hav-
ing said so.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—Did you say, "Don't
talk to me about money ?" Witness—" Not exactly
those words."
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—You refused to stay then,
and took away the books under your arm ? Wit-
ness—No; you keep confounding the two things.

I left Edinburgh from compulsion, and not from the
motives you attribute.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—Who compelled you?'
Wi!ness—You aid.
The Hon. Mrs. Nortou—l had the sm-.ller room
of the two, and you had the other one—eh ?
Wlt-
neye (sharply)—Did you think I was going to sit
in a bedroom and let the waiter bring up my break-
fast were ? Was not at all afraid of you. I left
L because you behaved badly to me.
Theinh u
;ran. Airs, Norton—ls your way of settling
Ed
accounts to elope 200 .Tiles (laughter) ?
Witness--No, I never fazid.l should go.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton—iron claim salary. I
won't ask you any more questions. I'm quite sure
any sensible man of business will agree wail 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 wista
to contradict some of her evidence. On the 12th
September I went to the ladies to whom she re-
ferred me, and one spoke very well cf her, and the-
other lady seemed extremely unwilling to answer
for her temper. There 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 tradespeople and introduce her as the re-
sponsible person. I sent the £25 on the 11th
October, and found that she had spent the whole
of that, and then I gave her 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 ,E 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 £ls. Her quarter's salary would
be £l2 10s., and the other ladies who employed her
only gave £25 a year, and it I were to pay that
run-away journey there would still be something
due to me.

Further evidence 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
ono accounted for, being omitted in the abstract,
and in fact the whole thing was a confusion. Wit-
ness added that the accounts, as rendered, were
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. Mrr. 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 doubtful,
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 discussion 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 say
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 Mrs.
Norton had paid the money.
The learned Judge—They did not say so fairly ;
it was a matter of doubt with them.

The Hon. Mrs. Norton then said she should give
formal notice of appeal on another day, and move
far a new trial, for the decision was exactly con-
trary to what had transpired in evidence.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

v.
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, beans,
and other articles dull, at late rates.