Star.
London, England, 1827-06-05 00:00:00

WRIGHT V BARNETT.

This was an action to recover 381. the price of some
articles of ironmongery, furnished by the plaintiff to
the defendant. The delivery of the artioles was proved,
and there was no dispute about their value.
Mr. Cnirry, on behalf of one of the bail, who de-
fended the action, contended that the plaintiff was not
entitled to recover, inasmuch'as- he knew, when he fur-
nished the goods, that the defendant had taken the
house for which they were supplied for the purpose of
receiving the improper visits of Gentlemen. • The
Learned Counsel cited authority to shew, that although
a person may maintain an action for mere necessaries
supplied to a woman of loose character, he cannot re-
cover for any goods furnished to her for the porposesof
prostitution, or Inc which he expected to be paid out of
the wages of her misconduct.
Mr. Walter, an attorney, proved that he called on
the plaintiff to tender him the amount of his demand,
without the costs, which he refused. He admitted, upon
that occasion, that although the defendant had been in-
troduced to him by a Mrs. Kelly as a married woman,
he discovered, subsequently to the delivery of the first
parcel of goods, what her condition was ; .aad he
complained. that aftihrugh she had paid him
punctually at first (like other women of her descrip-
tion, who had been his best customers), she after-
wards neglected to do so, even when to his knowledge
she had Gentlemen with her, from whom she must
have received money. His housekeeper slso observed,
in his presence, that when she applied to her upon
one occasion, she had a 1001. note in her lap, which
she said 4' she had just done a Gentleman out of."
Sarah Jervis said she was servant to the defendant,
and accompanied the last witness to shew him where the
plaintiff lived. Sire was present at the interview, and
observed to the plaintiff that he knew how the defen-
dant was situated, to which he assented. No one Gen-
tleman in particular lived with Mrs. Barnett.
On her cross-examination, the witness said she had
been tried at the Old Bailey for stealing, but acquitted.
Sarah Keliy said she was a washerwoman, and had
introduced Mrs. Barnett to the plaintiff, to whom she
cited that she a as not a married woman, but was kept
by a Gentleman, who came to her off and on, and
passed by the name of Barnett. Before her introduction
to the plaintiff, the defendant had lived in a lodging,
and was only visited by Mr. Barnett ; but subsequently
to her taking this house, she understood that she re-
ceived differtmt men.

Mr. Janots, for the plaintiff, contended that the evi-
dence was insufficieht to warrant the conclusion that
plaintiff knew that defendant had taken this house for
the purposes alleged; and still less, that the ankles in
question (principally kitchen furniture) were supplied to
her in furtherance of any such object.
The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up the evidence,
and left it to the Jury to say whether or not the plain-
tiff furnished the goods in furtherance of the defen-
dant's purposes of prostitution, or with the expectation
of being paid for them out of the profits of her im-
moral practices?

The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da
wages E3B.

WOODS, GENT. V. DICE, EEG.

This was an action to recover 4701. the amount of the
plaintiff's bill of costs for his services as attorney and
agent for the defend.int, Quintin D ck, E.q. AI.P. for
Oxtord, during and subsequently to his canvass for the
representation cf Maldon.

It was contended for the defendant, that the plain-
tiff 's demand was escessive—fir,t, in charging by items,
and at so much per day together ; and secondly, in
charging a guinea a day each for two clerks, one of
whom hAcl been paid 10s. per day for part of the time
by Mr. Dick's Committee, and the other had been paid
a guinea a day as poll clerk during the poll (which
lasted fifteen days) by the Mayor. Objections were
urged to other items of the bill also, so as to cut it down
within the sum of 3CO guineas, which had already been
paid to the plaintiff. To these objections it was urged
on behalf of the plaintif, that the charges by items
were for extra services late at night ; that he was enti-
tled to a profit on Vie labour of his clerks; that he had
given credit for the sum paid to one of them by the
Committee; and that his demand altogether was rea-
sonable, considering the exertions he had made, and the
unusual severity of the contest- •

The Jury. after retiring for some time, returned a
verdict fot 821. in addition to the 3151. already paid.