The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-24 00:00:00

SIIAMLES V. AIREY.

This was an action to recover 1;77 os. 10d, for
board and lodging, and money lent. lOs. paid
into court, and the defendant pleaded that he was
not further indebted.
Mr. Millward appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Pope for the defendant.
It appeared from the opening of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff and the evidence called on
her behalf, that the defendant was formerly
head master of the Hiudley Grammar School,
and chaplain of the Hindley Workhouse, his in-
come from both situations being about £6O a year.
Having lost these appointments, he subsequently
became curate of West Haughton Church, at £4O
a-year. From having lost part of his income he
became embarrassed in his circumstances. At his
own request he went to reside with the plaintiff, a
lady with some fortune. He was to pay 102. a
week for his rooms, 108. a week for his board, and
Is. 6d. a week for washing, but he had not paid
her anything for the last 12 months that he resided
with her. Among the items for money lent was
one of los , in order to enable the plaintiff to go to
Manchester; another of 65., to enable him to go to
Bolton ; a third of 9s, 61, for the purchase of a
pair of shoes ; and a fourth of 9d. per week for
tobacco, the defendant being a great smoker; and
another of ls. 2d. a day for beer. Previous to
leaving the residence of the plaintiff the defendant
took with him a clock, worth 305., and borrowed a
carpet-bag, worth 103. Some laughter was caused
by the reading over of the items, and 'by the plain-
tiff stating that' the defendant frequently did not
rise until between 2 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
He was accustomed to sit up very late smoking his
pipe and drinking beer. She denied that the de-
fendant settled with her )n the day before he left
her house, or that she was indebted to him.
For the defence, Mr. Pope said the agreement
was that the defendant should pay the plaintiff
12s. a week for his board tnd lodging, and that he
should also give lessons to the plaintiff's son. Be-
fore leaving he had a settlement with the plaintiff,
and paid her every farthing she demanded. As to
the clock, it was presented to the defendant by
Mrs. Sharples ; and as to :he 10s. paid into court,
it was on account of the mrpet-bag which he bor-
rowed prior to leaving la,.T house. The learned
counsel read a letter written by the plaintiff some
months after the defendant left her house, from
which it appeared that, so far from asking him to
pay her the £7O odd alleged to be owing to her, she
requested him to lend her £lO, observing, " You
will have to help me this quarter, and I will help
you next." The learned counsel added, that he
would put his client, who at present held a re-
sponsible position as a clergyman in Leeds, into
the witness-box, and he would tell the jury that he
was not indebted to the plaintiff at all. The par
ties were not on such intimate terms now as they
were then, and it would be for the jury, When they
ha=l heard the evidence, for the defence, to say on
which side the truth lay, end to form their own
opinion respecting the reasons which induced the
plaintiff to bring the present action.
The case was cornmenwd yesterday before his
lordship and adjourned. On its being resumed
this morning an arrangement was/ come to, the
defendant submitting tot verdict for in against
him on terms.

M`CARTILY V. THE LONDC!,I AND NOP.TII-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action br;ught by the plaintiff to
recover compensation it damages from the de-
fendants for an injary tustained by the plaintiff