The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

FAMILY JARS.—OSBORNE V. ROE.
Mr. PLATT stated the case. It was an action brought
by Wm. Osborne, a bricklayer and plasterer of College-
place, King's-road; Chelsea, against the defendant, a
gentleman holding a situation in her Majesty's Customs,
to recover the rent of a house in Lockwood-terrace,
Chelsea, occupied by the defendant's wife. The ques-
tion the Jury would have to decide was, whether the
defendant was liable for the use and occupation of the
house occupied by his wife. It was admitted that the
wife could pledge her husband's credit for necessaries,
and the Jury would have to say whether the occupation
of the house came under that class. It would be shown
that the defendant visited his wife at Lockwood-terrace,
and slept there occasionally ; and it could not be denied
that it was with his knowledge and consent the house
was occupied. It appeared that in 1837, the defendant
and his wife being on unfortunate terms, she came from
Ramsgate to London and took the house in question,
and on going down to Ramsgate in 1839 to her husband
she was turned out with violence. After referring to
other facts of the case as they afterwards appeared in
evidence, the Learned Counsel concluded by submitting
that the plaintiff was entitled to the sum claimed, namely,
24/. odd.
Emma Atkinson—l lived with Mr. and Mrs. Roe at
Ramsgate about five years ago. I always understood her
to be his wife. At first they seemed very comfortable,
and then they quarrelled. On the morning when we left
Ramsgate he was very violent. He said, if his wife did
not go, he would turn her out, and if that would not do,
he would kick her out ; that he was going for a con-
stable. I left the house with Mrs. Roe, and went to
Margate, and next morning we went to King's-road,
Chelsea, and afterwards to Lockwood-terrace, to Mr.
Osborne's house. She had three of the children with
her. I remained with her three months. Mr. Roe came
frequently during that time, once or twice a week, and
used to sleep there. Last time he came he d—d her, and
wished the house would fall about her ears. Mrs. Roe
and I went to the Mansion-house to see if her husband
would allow her a maintenance. I left her because she
could not afford to pay me my wages. 'The quarrel at
Ramsgate took place about her going down to make his
breakfast. The two servants went with her to London.
Sarah Piper—l served Mks. Roe with milk while she
lived at Chelsea. Mr. Roe took two more of the chil-
dren to her, and shortly afterwards he took them away.
Three remained with her, and when Mr. Roe was at
Lockwood-terrace one of the children slept with me. I
saw Mr. Roe at the house. Mr. Roe owes me 401. for
money advanced for the children. I saw them walking
arm-in-arm one day.
Rebecca Hodgson, a laundress, saw Mr. Roe three
times at Lockwood-terrace, and made the bed for him.
Never saw him in bed with Mrs. Roe.
Elizabeth Hodgson, daughter to the last witness, saw
Mr. Roe frequently at Lockwood-terrace. Had known
him stay there two nights at a time.
John Butt, an appraiser, levied on the goods of Wil-
liam Styles Roe, at 1, Lockwood-terrace, for 151. 15s. A
balance of 41. remained due. That was in January, 1840.
Charles Lock--I know the defendant, who took a
house of me at Chelsea, in 1836. His wife occupied it.
Mary Anne Shervet—Was in Mrs. Roe's service in
1839, and accompanied her to Ramsgate. At that time
none of the children were with her. The person who
opened the door at Mr. Roe's tried to shut it again, but
Mrs. Roe pushed it in aed went into the parlour where
Mr. Roe was writing. He asked her what she wanted.
She said she had brought the children some things. He
Said he did not want her nor the things, and to go about
her business. She refused to go, and he threatened to
send for a policeman, and she said she would give him
in charge. After some altercation he kicked Mrs. Roe
out of the door and myself also. We went back to Lon-
don. Mrs. Roe was not very violent or abusive. I saw
him kick her. A lady who lived next door to Mr. Roe
was present when Mrs. Roe was turned out.
Several letters addressed by the defendant from Rams-
gate in 1837 and 1838 to Mrs. Roe at Lockwood-terrace
were' put in and read. They were couched in very affec-
tionate terms, commencing " My Dearest Love," and
ending, " Your Affectionate Husband," and in one of
them he referred to having sent up some furniture for her
house, and hoped she would have half a bed to bestow
upon a weary traveller when he went up to London.
Mr. THESIGER addressed the jury for the defendant.
It appeared that he had not less than ten children, two
of them by a former wife, and it was owing to these in a
great measure that the unhappy differences arose. In
consequence of her refusing to allow one of his daugh-
ters to go down stairs and make his breakfast, the de-
fendant had, in a moment of irritation, threatened, but
without the slightest intention of carrying that threat
into effect, to turn her out. On his return home he
found that she had left his house with the two servants.
After tracing her out, he and his brother went to her,

and entreated her to return home, but she positively re-
fused to do so. Finding that she was living in a very
extravagant way, and likely to ruin him, he was com-
pelled to publish handbills in June 1838, and circulate
them through Chelsea, cautioning them not to give her
any credit ; he would show that the plaintiff had seen
one of these handbills. The defendant's income was
440/. per annum, but he had a large family, and a certain
station in society to support, and Mrs. Roe had in her
own right an income of 90. a year, which the jury would
admit was amply sufficient to support her if she chose to
live apart from her husband. He trusted that the jury
would take these circumstances into consideration, and
say that under all the facts of the case, Mr. Roe was not
to be called upon to pay all the debts his wife chose to
con tract.
A deed of settlement of 3001. Consols was then put in
and read.
Mr. MANGLES proved that since the separation of the
defendant and his wife, he had paid the proceeds, 901.
per annum to Mrs. Roe.
A clerk of the Customs proved that the salary of the
defendant was.4oo/. per annum, and he had a house,
which was let for 601, per annum. He has ten children.
Mr. F. Roe, brother to the defendant, and a banker
at Newport, Isle of Wight, deposed that in June, 1817,
he accompanied the defendant to Chelsea. They shook
hands, and defendant expressed a strong wish that she
should return to Ramsgate, but she said nothing would
induce her to do so. Defendant made use of the word
" woman," and she got into a violent rage, saying she
was no woman, but his lawful wife. Witness saw her
next day, alone, but she still refused to go to Ramsgate.
In 1838 or 1839 defendant received 1,0001., left him by
his uncle. Some property devolved to him also on the
death of his mother in December last. It consisted of
some houses, and money in the funds. The houses were
worth about 1,6001., and about 2,500/. in Consols. Defen-
dant was entitled to one-third only of that property.
Miss Geo, governess to the defendant's children, ac-
companied defendant to Chelsea in September, 1835, and
fetched away two of the three children then living with
Mrs: Roe. In 1839 the third child was brought home, and
shortly afterwards Mrs. Roe came down to Ramsgate. I
opened the door and she walked into the parlour. Mr. Roe
inquired what she wanted, she said she had brought some
clothes belonging to the children, and to demand the
quarter's money. for the last child. He told her to go,
and she said she would not go. He said he had orders
from his solicitor to send for a policeman and turn her
out, and she said she had the same orders from her soli-
citor. She seemed to be very cross. She had no clothes
with her. Mr. Roe took her gently and pushed her out
of the door. He did not kick her, nor did he use any
violent language. It was about half-past nine o'clock at
night. The children and servant were in bed at the
time. I did not attempt to close the door on Mrs. Roe. I
remained in the passage with the servant. I am still in
Mr. Roe's family.
Mr. PLATT having replied at some length,
Lord DniimAN summed up the case to the Jury, and
said it was for them to sly whether the defendant had,
by his conduct, rendered himself liable for the rent of the
house occupied by his wife.
The Jury interrupted the Learned Judge by returning
a verdict fur the plaintiff for the sum claimed, 24/. lls.