The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-28 00:00:00

JOHNSON AND CO. Y. SUMNER.

This was a special jury case, and the action was
brought by the plaintiffs, milliners, 16, Dover-street,
Piccadilly, against Mr, Morettib Sumner, * eon of Mr.
Richard Sumner, of Pultenham Priory, Guildford, to
recover the sum of 1661. 133. 7d. for goods supplied.
It appeared from the plaintiffs' evidence that in May,
June, and July, 1851, they supplied Mrs. Moreton
Sumner with articles of dress to the abote amount.
She was introduced to them by his mother as the
Countess VclQamacchi, widow of the late Bishop
Heber, of Calcutta. The countess was introduced
by the Do wager Duchess of Northumberland,
and had dealt with them for upwards of 18 years. The
accounts were regularly sett in every year with the
Countess's account,
till 1855, when an [application was
made to the defendant, who denied his liability. Frcm
Mr. Moreton Sumner's evidance, it appeared that in

July, 1849, he was married to the countess's
daughter. His father settled 5001. a year on
him, and the Count 2001. a year with a revi-
sionary interest in 4,0001. In May, 1851, he was in
the neighbourhood of LeiPsio with his wife and
her family, when be, from curtain causes, left her and
came to England, where he rornained till December. Ile
gave her about 60/. or 701. in money, and gave up to her
the 2001. a-year her father Bottled on her. In 1855 he
obtained a divorce. The evidence went to show that it
was during the time the defendant was in England the
goods were supplied to his wife.
Mr. Lush, Q C., for the defendant, eontended there
was no evidence to prove that the wife bad authority to
pledge her husband's credit.
Mr. James, Q.C., for the plaintiff, contended that the
fact of marriage was sufficient.
The Lord Chief Baron said be should distinctly lay
down that the wife in this instance had no right to
pledge her husband's credit. It had been shown that
when the husband left her he supplied her with means
by giving up to her the 2001. a year settled on him. If
you object to my ruling, I invite you to tender a bbl
of exception.

Mr. James—Then I accept your lordship's invitation.
(Laughter.)
The jury, by direction of hie lordship, returned a ver•
diet for the defendant.

INLAND lIEVENUR PROSEOUTION-TH4 ATTORNEY•

GENERAL v. BARRY.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Wilde, and Mr. Bevan
appeared for the Crown ; Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Bova', and
Mr. Welaby were counsel for the defen 'ant.
This was an information at the snit of the Attorney-
General against the defendant, who is the owner of mills
at ROM6ey, for making paper without taking out the
license required by the Excise -Law.. ,The article in
question is called by the defendant, and is described in
the patent which was taken out in 1853 by one Brown
as a " new and improved parchment." The material of
which this article consists is animal fibre, which being
reduced into a pulp, is manufactured into a strong
and durable substance, capable of being applied to
almost all the uses to which paper popularly so
called is almost applicable, and capable also of being used
for all the purposes to which parchment is applicable.
on paper defines paper to be
The Act imposing a duty
an article made of linen or cotton rags, straw, or any
other vegetable fibrous substance, so that the real ques-
tion between the Crown and the defendant was whether
he was a papermaker within the words of the Act, and
as such bound to take out a license and pay duty on the
goods so manufactured by him.
At the close of the evidence for the Crown,
Sir Fitzroy Kelly submitted that there was no case to
go to the jury against the defendant. The evidence
raised a pure question of law, which it was for the Court
to decide. This was an information for the purpose of
imposing a new tax, and it was for the Crown to prove
that the article in question was " paper," which ho con.
tended that this particular article was not within the
meaning of the Act.
The Solicitor-General argued that the case did fall
within the Act.
His Lordship, after a long and desultory conversation,
expressed his opinion, formed as it was on a sudden, to
be that article being " in the nature of a paper" was
paper taxable within the Aot ; but he was by no means
eonfideut that the opinion he had expressed was the right
one. The better way would be for him to direct the jury
to find for the Crown, and for the Crown to consent to
his reserving leave to the defendant to move to enter a
verdict. As, however, the Court. might think there was
not, the arrangement would so stand, as that in that
event power should be reserved to the Court to order a
new trial, when the precise quei Ilion for the jury would
I be defined.
1 A verdict was thereupon taken for the Crown for 1001.
the amount of penalty for making paper without a liCelllo.