Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1857-05-02
Circuit Court.

cldeu IN ctr circuit court on last Friday
being suit bfo't by Miss Mary b. Virgil
against Joseph Bells Executors, in whicl
the plaintiff claimed damages to the amour
Of $1,000. Tie counsel in the case wer,
the Hon. \, f. II. Stuart and Wm. Ne
Laughlin for the plaintiff and Hon. Johf
Ietcher aud Thos j. Niche for the dcfen.
dants.
The basis of the suit was a letter from
Joseph Bell to Mrs. Wright, the mother o
the plaintiff, written On the 10th Of ,Iaauar,
lS4S asking permission OF Mrs ". to al
low Mary to come and live with him as hi,
adopted daughter and promising to receive
and treat her as Il daughter and do child +
part by her if she remained with him. Thi,
letter was not admitted as evidence because
Miss ". through feeling of dclicacy bad
erased an immaterial portion Of it, in which
Mr.. Bel referred to her in terms of the
most complimentary ehatacter--this writing
was restored By Maj Gillian of the Y. ".
institute On the faith Of this contract
with Mrs Wright, Mary went to Mr. BELL :
in March lS4s. and remained till March,
1855, seven years. Mr.. Bell died on the
18th Of April, 1s55, without making any
provision for Miss W in his viii The suit
was brought by Miss Wright to recover her
portion Of the estate as the adopted child q
the testator, and also to roeo~or compeusa-
ton for the seven years service she hal ren-
dered
It vas proved by Mrs Rel, widow Of
Joseph Bell, that Miss Wright was Tie T.
dopted daughter of Mr. b., and had come
to reside with him under an arrangement
made between him and Mrs, Wright. She
was about fifteen years of age when she
came, and was received into the family aud
treated as an adopted child. Both Mr, and
Mrs. Bell were invalid and inGrnn people
in need Of the most tender and
patient attentions which we're always cheer
fully and afiectionately rendered by Mary.
No ono would have come and staid and done
as well as she conducted herself She had
the oversight Of the entire household, man
aging the dairy, the kitchen, the weaving
room and in fact every department Of the
affairs. She was treated as daugh-
tor, bought goods at the stores for her own
use on Mr.. Bells credit just as a daugh-
ter would have done Mr.. Bell considered
her as invaluable to his comfort and i'll her
Of his household. She waited
on him affectonatcly, and although he was
at times peevish and fretful and INDUCED in
there was no fault on her par,
that he was not pleased None Of lis chill
dren lived with. him from the time Mary
came till he was taken with his last illness
when they came to stay with him during
his sickness.
Other evidence was introduced confirming
the above, and showing that Mary was look
ed upon in the neiehborhood as his adopted
daughter and that Mr. Bell so spoke of and
treated her She remained until after the
arrival Of his children at his last illness, when
her situation was made so uncomfortable
that she was compelled to leave She left
in March 1855 and Mr. Bell died on the
18th of April of that year
The case opened in a brief but clear speech
by Mr. Mclaughlin for the plaintiff, who,
mainly directed his argument to the law
bearing on the ease lie was followed by
Messrs Letcher and Niche for the defen-
ants. The argument was concluded by Mr.
Stuart in behalf of the plaintiff, in mas
terly speech in which he principally showed
the bearing of all the circumstances con-
nected with the case, removed every diff
Guilty out of the way of his fair client solaims,
and had telling effect upon the sympathies
of all who heard him.
The Jury rendered verdict for the plain
tiff of s., 500, and the Judge overrulcd the
motion of the defendants for new trial on
condition that the plaintiff agreed to take
81 900 with interest from the 18th April
1855, the date of the testator's death, which
was consented to by both parties, and iudg-
accordingly. --Lcrington &c
2ttte.