The Sun.
London, England, 1804-03-02 00:00:00

LAW SEPORT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH', F. 27.

SUSAN UZELL V. ROBERT FISHER.

TtiE Plaintiff itned in the capacity of maid.ser:
vant to a Lady kept formerly by the Defendant.
It happened that the Lady so kept was a Mrs'.
Perrv, who went under the Defendant's oWn name
by her he had had six children; five of whOm were
now alive. The Plaintiff aced in the capacitY, of
maid-servant to' attend upon these children, and this
2,ffior. wa;; brrtight for wages (rol.) due for the disl
charge of that duty.
r. Eitstorts: expressed 'his' astonishment that
tendlnt should sn far forget his own charaftet
as to introduce'such circumstances, into a Court o
Justice, by.the defence of this anion. undeiStood
Mt. Fisher had married another Lady, 'and he did
not mean to blame him for exchanging an illicit
connexion for one that was leg-ifl aty..l honourable
but he must cet;sure tim most severely for -abandon.
ing to poverty—the unfOrturtate .vinitu he' hid se.
duce,i, and for even withholding the wage's that

were due for•atlendanee• On his own.offsprini:- The
"'Learned Counsel' rh4rfroduced Witnesses; who de-
->posed to thr situation of Mrs: Perry,-in.d to the
ntss in. which the Plaintiff was etnploy'ed:'
Mr. GAti It ow, on the part•of thepefendant, la.
menird extrcinely the indiscretion r too apparent in
this case ; bur if 'his
,initruttions were corred, 'he
had a valid' defence ; anil with relpia to the rest he
felt very much as every mail in Court must do, but
on ',filch it would be neither pi'oper or necessary
that he should detain the Court and Jury. He then
called several•Witresses, one of whom direlly said,
• the Plaintiff had been discharged by hira (the Wit-
ness)•on the rat I of the-Defendant, ard:that -she had
acknowledged t! le discharge, by saying " she ac-
cepted such notice:"
Thus evidence was opposed by .Mrs: Perry, who
Was again and who 'iaid; the-'Plaintiff was
contirAL:(l in the service by the expresi orders of the'
Defendant. •

Lord ELLENIVOROUGH—" The result must de-
pend upon the'credit-you give to the respeffive Wit_
_tresses. If you believe Mrs. Perry, there Was a con-
tinuation of the contra& The children certainly
did require. the assistance of this person ; these, -it
seems, were removed ,in November last, when a
year's wages Would have been due. -The .new con.
nexion did not discharge the solemn duty imposed
by nature upon_ the Defendant, to support and-pro.
tea, his own children by -this unfortunate Lady,".
His- Lordship ...then commented on the suspicious
circumstances in the testimony of the Clerk of
Defendant, and on the clear and.consistent evidence
of Mrs, Perry.'.-,VerdielloF theiPlaintiE

FEBRUARY .28.

BR ANNAN 'V. DODDS.

This aEtion was brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendant, for board and lodging to his wife.
Mr. Gr D Bc, for the Plaintiff; Stated, inhis•open-
ing, the point of law, that if a husband maltreat his
wife, so as to render her stay in his family danger-
`ous to life or limb, or destruCtive of her peace, arid
the wife taketeftigeelsewhere;:the husband is liable
.to the charge a her su“enance. The Learned
Counsel added, that the husband for his tnisconduti,
had been cited before the Ecclesiastical Couit,. anti
had been-guilty of a contempt of that Cotirt.
then observed that the woman had been exp9sed td
the greatest violence and malignity. The evidence,
however, although it went far enough,to'disgrace
the Defendant, did not f..uptport all the matters in
the opening of Mr. G 113139.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—" It is, Gentlemen, for
.you to judge if the wife of the Defendant was driven
from the house and exposed to Want ; for if the evi-
dence in yi.tit *Os go far enough to establish that
she experieoeed such brutal treatment as to render
it impossible for her to live with her husband, then
she had a right to get credit upon his account for
the necessaries of life. You will-compare the fads
in evidence with this•rule of the law, and give your
verdiet aecordingly."—Verdiel fur tht.,
131. 13s. ad.;, •