The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-08 00:00:00

t

e '

[PRICE 4D. STAMPED SD.

LAW INTELLIGENCg.-Aug. 7.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
• (Before Sir J. Dodson.)
Thfi' was the first caveat day after Trinity Term.
IN TH:3 GOODS OF JOHN SADLEIR, ESQ. (A FELO DE SE.)
The Queen's Advocate said that John Sadleir, late of
Gloucest,'3r-square, Hyde-park, died on the 17th of Feb.,
1856, intestate. By an inquisition, taken at Hampstead
on the 11th of March following, it was found that the
deceased did feloniously take his own life, and a verdict
of fJ de se was returned. By reason of such felony the
estate and effects of which the deceased was possessed,
or to which he was then entitled, or to which he might
become entitled, became forfeited to her Majesty in right
of her Royal prerogative. Her Majesty, by warrant
under tho Royal sign manual bearing date the 2d ult.,
and countersigned by two of the Commissioners of her
Majesty's Treasury, had granted all the right, title, and
interest whatsoever of her Majesty in and to the goods,
chattels, and credits of the deceased to Mr. Anthony
Norris, of Bedford-row, to the extent that he might ob-
tain letters of administration of the goods, chattels, and
credits for the benefit of the creditors and next of kin to
the deceased. He the (Queen's Advocate) moved the
Court to decree administration to Mr. Norris accord-
ingly.
The Courtgranted the application.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
NOVEL CLAIM FOR SERVANT'S WAGES.-BECKLEY V. LORD
SOUTHAMPTON.
- _

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard
Beckley, described as a lodging-house keeper, No. 37,
Green street, Grosvenor-square, against the Right Hon.
Lord Southampton, to recover 311., under the following
circumstances.
Mr. Haynes, in opening the case, after remarking that
it was one of the greatest importance to masters and
domestics, said the action was brought for the amount
named for damages consequent on the breach of defen-
dant's contract ; for that the defendant, on the 16th of
November, 1855, engaged and hired the plaintiff as
groom of the chambers at his country establishment,
Whittlehury Lodge, from the 19th of that month to the
spring of the present year • but, contrary to such agree-
ment, he, without cause, broke the same.
The plaintiff being called, from his statement it ap-
peared that in June, 1855, residing where he now did,
he visited Mr. Cater, his lordship's steward, in Grosvenor-
street, as an old acquaintance, when in the course of con-
versation the latter said that a groom of the chamber
would be wanted at Whitiebury Lodge about the
middle of November, when visitors and company com-
menced staying there ; that the engagement would last,
with the exception of a week or two at Christmas, for
which period the visitors left, till the spring, which wit-
ness understood from the almanack to commence the
latter part of March. Witness having filled a similar
situation with the Honourable Spencer Cooper and
Lori Palmerston, from each of whom he received
10s. a day, inquired the terms. Mr. Cator replied
21. a week, and no doubt many perquisites, which,
thinking the engagement, if entered into, a lengthened
one, he said he would accept. On the 16th November,
in consequence of a note previously received from Mr.
Cator, he went to Grosvenor-street and saw his lordship,
by whom the previous arrangement by Mr Cator was
ratified in almost the same words as to the time he
should be wanted. Afcer the lapse of five weeks he WAS
told his services were no longer required, and was paid
101. by Mr. Cator, then due to him, as also 11. for
his journey from and to London, for which he wrote a
receipt on his leaving Mr. Cater, telling him that he
should be wanted again the next month. Finding,
however, he was not sent for, and after some corres-
pondence with Mr. Cator, understanding that he had
been finally dismissed, and failing in receiving, any
recompense for the same, he instituted these pro-
ceedings

Cross-examined by Mr. Roberts—When with the gen-
tlemen be had named he was not engaged for any
period, and was only paid for the days he was so.
Mr. Roberts, in reply, said he should be able to prove
that the plaintiff was only an " occasional" servant, to
be paid, not as a regular servant in the establishment of
his lordship, but merely as a weekly servant.
His Lordship most positively denied ever stating any
time he should require plaintiff for when he saw him on
the 16th November, which arrangement he always en-
trusted to his house and land steward, Mr. Cator ; all
that passed being his saying to him, "Your name is
Beckley, is it ? When can you come ?" and he believed
he answered i❑ three days' time.
Mr. Cater said that the conversation as related by the
plaintiff in June was correct, but in the most direct
terms disavowed mentioning as to how long he was re-
quired. When he paid him the 11/. he considered his
hiring at an end, he being a weekly servant, and some
days before he did leave he told him that after an en-
suing day mentioned he would be no longer wanted.
His Honour having summed up, and observed that
plaintiff, from his own showing, was only a weekly ser-
vant, altri, therefore, could not substantiate his claim,
The Jury returned a verdict for defendant.