The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-04-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN7'ELLIGENCE.

NORTH WALESC--!111 -Z-r .--ARNEAVONSIURS.
AN EX I'l AIVE. HOUSEKEI'.I4I7:St:

LEWIS v. LLorn.—This was an action brought by Ann
Lewis against the defendant (Admiral Lloyd) to recover com-
pensation for her services as housekeeper. The. defendant
pleaded that he hail not hired, or, if he had, that he hail paid her;
and he pleaded also the statute of limitations in bar of par tof
the claim.
The plaintiff, the daughter ofa small farmer in Anglesea,bad
engaged in 1825 as housekeeper of the defendant, who was an
oflicer of rank in the navy, residing at Treganan, in Anglesea.
Soon after she went to reside' with the defendant, a connexion
was formed between the parties which resulted in the plaintiff's
giving birth to a female child; and she was installed in the man-
sion more in the character of its mistress than as a housekeeper;
she had the use of the carriage and a saddle hone, and was at- •
tended by a man-servant whenever she went out; she also en-
gaged and discharged the servants at pleasure, and was called
and treated as the mistress of the mansion. This continued
until February, 1831, when, through some cause or other, she
left thebouse, and had brought the present action to recover the
sum of I:400, being eight years' salary, at £5O per annum, To
establish this claim, two witnesses were called to prove that the
defendant had stated to them that as the plaintiff's conduct was .
so good, and as she was economical in the management of his
household affairs, saving him some hundreds of pounds, he
would allow her £5O a-year beside's presents; and as those
would be considerable she would have no occasion to touch her
salary, which he would keep for her as the best banker she
could have.
For the defence, statements were made to the effect that the
! plaintiff did not engage as a housekeeper, but undera knowledge
1 and understanding that she was to cohabit with the defendant;
andthat, having considerable influence over him, she had in-
duced him to allow her to assume his name, and to use his equi.,
pages and his house as their mistress. She had, before living
with the defendant, been a servant in various capacities--at a
pot-house, and a scullery-maid in a respectable family. Whilst
living with the defendant, however, she was elevated to the poJ
sition which it is already stated she had held in his house, and
received many valuable presents from the defendant, and also
considerable sums of money. So far from her being house-
keeper, it was stated that the establishment was complete as.*re-
spects domestics when she was introduced into the house, conti-
nued the same after she was introduced, and also up to the time
that she left. She had not been discharged or repudiated by
the defendant, but it appeared that she had left him with a dis-
charged coachman, in May, 1833. and had lived some time at
Holyhead, from whence she had sent letters to the defendant
stating that she was comfortable. She was at that time pos-
sessed of considerable sums of money, and had a deposit of
£lOO in the Carnarvon bunk. She had made various applica-
tions to the defendant since then, in terms which showed that
she did not consider any money was due to her.
Several witnesses were called, whose evidence went to sus-
tain the connexion in more decisive terms than above stated;
and, whilst the defence was proceeding, the plaintiff consented
to be non-suited.