The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-28 00:00:00

ENING- EDITION

-
Illrisqn from the whimsical. view 'whic'a Mr. Phipps had
taken. For the same reason the petitioners themselves
should be indemnified, and the consNuew.;c therefore was that
an order must be made that Mr. Phipps should execute the
power of attorney, and that he sliculd pay the costs of the
petition.
Some discussion ensued, in consequele of applications from
the Counsel of the different parties respecting thy casts, which
were subsequently ordered to be paid as between party and
party.

SHERIFF'S COUR7, APRIL 27.
DAVIS V. lICTON.

This was an action to recover the sum of 131. fls. Gd.
alleged to be due to the plaintiff for wages, she having
acted as s•:rvart to the defendant.
The defendant pleaded not iadebted, and witnesses were
called on the part of the plaintiff, who proved that the de-
fendant, who kept a boarding-house in the neighbourhood
of Fitzroy-square, in the year 1834, engaged the plaintiff
as a servant, at the sum of three shillings a week, and
the plaintiff• remained in the defendant's house for sixteen
weeks, when ihe left without receiving any wages; but
sub.icqueLtly she returned to the defendant's house, at the
same wages as before, and remained till the end cf 1840,
the whole time she remained with the defendant, amount-
ing to 111 weeks, and the plaintiff, having received
31. 101. Gd. since she last left the defendant, the balance
remaining was the amount cla;med.
The defendant, a French woman, conducted her own
defence, and addressed the Jur•, stating thit she had en-
gaged the plaintiff as servant, but never agreed to give
per clay wage=. :The was to board and lodge in her house,
and for this she wai to act as servant.

The defendant then ca!led her son and daughter, and
hey eeposed to having been present when the agreement
alluded to by the defendant was made, and that it was al-
ways understood the plaintiffwas to live with them as ser-
vant without any wages.
The Jury retired, and some time afterwards returned
with a verdict for the plaintiff for the wh )1e amount.

CLAY V. lIEWZTT.

This was an action brought by the pla'ntiff, a surgeon,
against the defendant, to recover 101 84. Bd,, the amount
of the plain. iff 's bill, for medicine and attendance.
It appeared that defendant's mother, who resided next
door ti the plaintiff, bed for some time previous to the
27th of April !ast, been in a very bad state of health, and
in February tl-e plaintiff was called in to attend her, but
in consequence of some misunderstanding that arose be-
tween the plaintiff and some person in Mrs. Hewett's
house, Mr. Gray left off visiting the house, but on the de-
fendant calling on tive plaintiff', and requesting him again to
visit his mother, as he need not be u9der any apprehension
as to his bill hieing paid, for he (the defendant) would see
is paid himself, the plaintiff again visited Mrs. Ileivitt
up to her death, which occurred in April last, since which
the plaintiff had seat in his bill to the defendant for the
whole amount of his attendance on his mother. The de-
fendant having called on another surgeon, aqd submitted
it to him ; and taking into consideration that
the plaintiff only lived next door to Mrs. Hewett,
the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, stating that
as his mother's income, which was small, was derived
from an annuity, out of which nothing could be saved to
n:eet her liabilities, but that her fjends would have to dis-
charge them, he thought that five guineas, together with a
sovereign which had been paid him before. would remune-
rate him for his services; this the plaintiff refused, and in-
stituted the present action.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.