The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 18'68.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
BAXTER AND ANOTHER V. MISS AD All ISAACS

3IENKEN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as
trustees of Pearce and Countze, formerly coach-
builders in Long-acre, to recover from the defen-

dant, the well known equestrian actress in Lord
Byron's " Mazeppa," a sum of £33 ss. 61 upon an
acceptance.

The defendant pleaded numerous pleas, and
among them false representation, no consideration,
never indebted, fraud, payment, and a set-off.
Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. Murphy appeared
as counsel for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Parry
and Mr. Joyce were for the defendant.

Mr. Prentice baying opened the case for the
plaintiffs,

did work at the same rate as the plaintiffs—viz., 12f
per cent. (Laughter.)
Miss Menken, the defendant, was then examined.
She said —ln 1864, I entered into an engagement
with Mr. Smith, who was then manager of
Astley's. It was at Mr. Smith's suggestion that the
brougham was bought. He introduced me to
Messrs. Countze and Pearce, the coachmakers. I
gave no directions as to the character of the
brougham or to the ornaments. Mr. E. T. Smith
gave the suggestions for the ornaments to the car-
riage in my presence. The rampant horses—
(laughter)--were put on the carriage by direction
of Mr. Smith. lon one occasion accompanied Mr.
Smith to the coachmakers, and he gave orders for

the design and other particulars about the carriage.
I am at variance with Mr. Smith at the present
time. I have a claim against him, and I have com-
menced an action against him. When I first used
the carriage in the rain the water and mud
came in through the oval glasses, although
they were not made to open. I had
dresses spoiled through that circumstance. I
don't recollect complaining of it, but I must have
done so, as I know it was sent back to be made
weather proof. The silver mountings after they
had been cleaned a short time by the ordinary pro-
cess turned black, and it could not be repolished
without the fittings being replated. This came to
her knowledge in about six weeks after she had had
it. I don't know anything about the repairs charged
in July to the amount of £l4 18s. 6d. One of the
gentlemen of the firm inspected the brougham at
my door, and he suggested very expen,ive repairs,
but I declined to adopt them, as the brougham
looked to me in perfect repair. I did not consent
to have the repairs executed. To the best of my
recollection I never suggested any alterations to
the brougham, but it was in constant want of
repairs.

The Lord Chief Justice—l think it necessary that
we should have the books of the plaintiff to see
what those repairs were. It may have a very mate-
rial bearing on the case.
Sergeant Parry—l thank you, my lord, for the
suggestion.

lan overcharge was made. Ile ce.ntended that
the brougham was a direct advertiser ieut for Ast-
ley's Theatre, and therefore the par ;y responsible
for it, morally, was Mr. E. T. SiniC i, because the
beautiful carriage had only to be seen. la the street
with its still more beautiful occupant when .a run for a
private box in the theatre was the result. (L aughter.)
The plaintiff had charged the large sum a £l5 for
interest for less than 12 months, and on th e balance
of an account for nearly £300; and in ordc r to make
up the £4O now sued for had to insert /bat little
item in his bill. He thought Miss Menken had
been a remarkably good customer to Messrs.
Pearce and Countze ; and he was certain there
was not a coachmaker in court at th Lt moment who
would not be delighted to make her another
brougham on precisely the same terns. (Laughter.)
He felt sure that his client had fully paid the value
of the brougham, and he hoped the: jury would be
of that opinion and give her their verdict.

The Lord Chief Justice having summed up the

evidence,

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for
£27 45., being the amount claimed, less the in-
terest.

111-11111) EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, 7 o'CunK.