The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-25 00:00:00

MAUNDER V. FRANCIS BIGG, ESQ.

The plaintiff, a gamekeeper, sought to recover 501., as
wages for one year, from the defendant, the Lord of the
Manor of Iver, in Bucks, viz., from the Ist of September,
1832, to the last day of August in the same year. The de-
fendant had pleaded that he did not make a contract in the
manner alleged in the declaration.
Mr. White, the actual Lord of the Manor, leased the
manor to the defendant, and received 30/. for the lease for
the term. The usual pay to gamekeepers was fifteen shil-
lings a week, with a house to live in rent free, or one guinea
without a house.

Richard Maunder, son of the plaintiff, swore that the de-
fendant agreed to give his father 501. a year, a suit of
clothes, and rent (viz. house), and that when his father made
the proposition the defendant said " Very well."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the defendant, denied that
any contract had been entered into, and called witnesses to
prove his assertions.
William Pocock, groom to the defendant, went by
orders from his master down to the plaintiff in August,
who said there was plenty of game on Mr. White's land,
that he would ensure him that his master would kill
twenty brace the first day, that his master might shoot
till the gun burnt his hand. But on the Ist of Sep-
tember not a bird was started, and they only procured
two hares. Indeed, some of the tenants on the land
warned the defendant off. On the sth of September
his master sent him down to pay the plaintiff off. When
the latter saw him, he said " I have been waiting for
you two or three days." " Have ou ?" said the witness.
" Yes," said the plaintiff ; "is your master come down ?"
" No," said the witness, " he is not coming any more ; he
has sent me to pay you off, and there is your week's pay,"
tendering him a sovereign, which the plaintiff accepted, and
gave him his master's gun and some powder and shot ; but
observed, " It will be all right when master comes down."
Witness said, " But he is not coming again ; if you have
anything to say to him, you must write."
Plaintiff then went to the Catherine Wheel Inn, at Cole-
brooke, and produced the following epistle, which the wit-
ness identified, and which the Clerk of the Court read :
" Sept. 5.
" Mr. Bigg—l'm sory it so apened, but I've sit Mr. Vowls
of Winser upon him, who will cut him up like a feather, when
he gits him into Cort ; while he has a sheling he'll niver leve
him Aut when he sese his face it will be all up with him.—
Yours, RICHARD MAUNDER, Colebrook."

It did not appear to what person he alluded in this eru-
dite epistle, nor whom Mr. V. was to cut up.
Mrs. Pocock confirmed her husband's testimony.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said the question for the Jury to
consider was whether the hiring was a yearly or a weekly
one. The Learned Judge read the plaintiff's letter, which,
he said, it was difficult to make out, but which created
some amusement in the Court by the irresistible manner in
which he read it, laying the exact emphasis on each word
as written by the plaintiff, and explaining its literal mean-
ing, and accounting for certain hiatuses in the manuscript.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of 49/.

PREROGATIVE COURT.