The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-12 00:00:00

NEW BILLS.

Leave was given to introduce the following Bills,
which were severally brought in and read a first
time :
Mr. C. LEWIS, a Bill to authorise the inclosure of
certain lands, in pursuance of a special report of the
Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales.
Mr. HUME, a Bill to repeal an Act of 9 and 10 of
her present Majesty, for making preliminary inquiries
in certain cases of applications for local Acts.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, a Bill to amend the
law for the trial of election petitions.
Mr. PARKER, a Bill to amend the Act 10 and 11
Vic., c. 9.
The House adjourned, at a Quarter before Two
o'clock, till noon on Monday.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Guildford, Aug. 11.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the LORD CIIIEF BARON and a
Special Jury.)
SCARPELLINI V. SETRANKE.

This was an action brought by Louisa Scarpellini
against the defendant and his wife Marietta. The decla-
ration alleged that before the marriage of the defendant,
his wife had contracted a debt with the plaintiff for board
and lodging, education, and necessaries, and this action
was brought to recover 2001., the amount of the alleged
debt so incurred.
The defendants pleaded, first, that there had been no
contract; next, that the amount had been paid; thirdly,
that the lady was an infant at the time the debt was iu-
curred; and, fourthly, the statute of limitations; but to
this last plea there was a demurrer, consequently it was
not involved in the present inquiry.
Mr. Gurney and Mr. Ogle were for the plaintiff; Ser-
geant Shee and Mr. Lush were for the defendants.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case, which appeared to be of
rather an extraordinary character. He said the plaintiff
was a native of Italy, but she had for a great many
years resided in England, and only occasionally paid a
visit to her own country. The defendant was a resi-
dent of St. Alban's, and he believed he should be able
to show that his wife was the sister of the plaintiff. He
made use of the expression believed, on account of the
peculiar character of the transaction, for the principal
question in the case would be, whether this lady was or
was not the sister of the plaintiff, as it was for neces-
saries furnished to her in that position, that the present
action was brought against the defendants. In the year
1833, the plaintiff having received an intimation of the
death of a near relative, proceeded to her native village
in Italy, and she there found a younger sister, almost
in a state of destitution, and when she returned to
England she brought her back with her. That sister
remained with her, stopping at various places, until
the year 1838, and during all that period the plaintiff
provided for her, boarded, lodged her, and provided
her with masters, and, in fact, did all that was pos-
sible to give her an opportunity of providing for her-
self, incurring for these purposes very considerable
expense. In the year 1838, the child being at that
time between ten and twelve years old, a gentleman
who was struck with the talents she exhibited, offered to
adopt her as his child, and the sister consented that he
should do so, and she was taken away from her by the
gentleman in question. From that time to the present
the plaintiff had altogether lost sight of her sister. She
repeatedly applied to the gentleman who had taken
charge of her to allow her to see her, but he refused, and
it was only by a combination of extraordinary circum-
stances that the plaintiff at length ascertained that the
defendant was married to a lady who, from the descrip-
tion given of her, and other circumstances, left no doubt
on her mind that she was her younger sister, who had
so loug lived with her, and of whom for so many years
she had lost all trace. The plaintiff being satisfied of
this fact, went to the residence of the defendant, and
sent up ber name, and requested to be permitted to
have an interview with his wife; but Mrs. Seyranke
refused to see her, and denied all knowledge of
her, or that she was under any obligation to her.
This was the defence now set up, and this
was the question which the jury would have to
decide. The plaintiff, acting under advice, had taken
every step to set the question at rest, and if her pro-
ceedings had been responded to by the defendants, there
would have been no doubt in the case. An application
had been made for persons who were well acquainted
with the young lady to be permitted to have an interview
with her, but it was refused. Formal notice had also
been served upon the husband to produce his wife, but
he refused to do so. Persons who knew Miss Scarpellini
had applied to see her, but the only answer they received
was that she could not be seen. If an interview had
been allowed to take place, of course, the matter would
at once have been set at rest; but as this had been re-
fused, he should be unable to lay such clear evidence
before them of the identity of the lady as he had hoped
to have done; but ho apprehended that in the result the
jury would entertain no doubt that the wife of the de-
fendant was in reality the sister of the plaintiff, by
whom the debt had been incurred. If the defence
really was that she was not the same person, he
thought that in common fairness the application
to allow persons who knew her to have an interview
with the lady ought not to have been refused;
but he considered the plea of infancy put upon the re-
cord by the defendant settled the question, and that it
amounted to an admission that Mrs. Seyranke was in
' reality the sister of the plaintiff, by whom the obliga-
tions had been incurred. That plea, however, was not
of any importance as affecting the plaintiff': claim, for
it was only for necessaries, and for them eh. would be
eotiticri :e lee: to r, cover. although the party was
under age at the time. The claim, as' he had before
stated, was for board, lodging, and other necessaries,