The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-02 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Wc;tininstcr, before kr.
Justice Ent.r. and Corninon Juries.)
TINGLEY V. DALTON.

Mr. Addison appeared fttr the rtaintiff, and A,tr. Ser.
grant Shea and Mr. A. A. Fry fur the defendants.
Mr. ADDISON said, this was an action brought by the
plaintiff; a strvant, named Sarah Pirgley, in forma

' pauperis, to recover damages from the defendant, who
is a butcher at Westmoreland, near Long Eaton, under
the following eircumstanees:—The plaintiff was engaged
by the defendant as a cook, et 9/. a ye:;r, and she entTred
into his s,rvice on the 3d of March last. Shortly after,
she round that the situation weld not suit her, and on
the 3d of April she intimated that she should leave on
the following 3d of May. She sent for her uncle, to
whom she had intimated on the 2d of March that she
intended on the following day to give her master
warning, to come for her, and to bring a cart to convey
her things to his home at Long Eaton. lie found,
however, that the defendant ‘vould not allow her
to leave, on the .*round that she had not given
wsrning. She left,; however but the defendant
d refuse to allow .her to take her clothes and boxes

with her, and they were lett in a wash-house.
Before she left her uncle told the defendant that if she
had not given him a month's notice that he might deduct
a month's wages, adding to the plaintiff that so long as
her clothes remained in the defendant's possessfon, she
would he entitled to cages. In addition to her clothes,
which were superior to one in her c'ass of life, there
was a mahogany tea-chest, and a rosewood work-box.
She had been unable to obtain her clothes up to the pre-
sent time, and had in consequence been prevented from
earning her livelihood as a servant, owing to the want of
proper garments. The hiring was fur one year, and a
month's notice cr a month's wages was necessary for
both sides to terminate the contract before that time.
The action, therefore, was brought to recover the value
of her clothes, and damages for the injury she had sus-
tained in consequence of their detention by the de-
fendant.

George Hoare, the uncle, proved going for his niece
and that her clothes, &c., were worth about 171. 10*. He
admitted, in cross• examination, that he had not applied
to the defendant for the things, and that she left at half-
past six o'clock on Saturday night.
Mr. Sergeant SuEA submitted that there was no case

for the consideration of the jury. No evidence had been
adduced to show that the plaintiff gave the defendant a
mouth's notice, and that he had not acted in a perfectly
legal manner.
Mr. Justice, ERLE considered that the case, notwith-
standing the meagreness of the evidence, ought to go to
the jury, but in the event of their returning a verdict for
the plaintiff, be woull allow him to enter a nonsuit.
The accepted law on the subject was that a master might
either give his servant a month's notice or a mouth's
wages, but he could recollect no authority where it was
held that a servant had a right to say to her employer,
" Take a month's wages, and let me leave instantly."
Mr. Sergeant SHEA said tr.° action aas nothing more
than the speculation of the attorney for the plaintiff, as
it was commenced only two days after the girl left the
defendant's house, and before any demand had been made
for the goods. Not only was no demand made, but
no evidence had been adduced to show that
the plaintiff gave any notice of her intention to leave,
or that he had prevented her using her clothes. No
douht it was her intention to leave on the day she did
without the consent of the defendant, and without having
given any previous notice. A servant was not entitled
to leave her situation just when she thought proper, bui;
more especially a time when her absence might cause
contusion in the family, when perhaps he expected com-
pany, or when his wife was ill and his children required
her care.

Mr. Justice ERLE having explained the law to
the jury, they, after a few minutes' consideration, found
a verdict for the plaintiff for 37/. 10s., 20/. fur damages
and 171. 10s. the value of the clothes.