Court Of Common Pleas, Gu...
The Times, 1824-07-17T00:00:00

(Bcjtine tfte Louts U1tia1s'. UtST-ICE-atu a COMfIOni(mJil The Loitn CHIlEF JUSTIC-E Fat thlis M60ing, in the Court 't Kinges Bencei, in conisequence of its beinga mitch. cooler apar,Imel than that w hich ist usually occupied bv the Court o,f Commo Plas ALDRED V. PIPER. Air. CoSIyx openedl the pleadings. The declafation sated, that this- wris an actioln, for good3s oldl andI delivered. The defendani pleaded that he was not liable, and upon that point issue wasjinred. IMr. Sergeant PELn stated the case for the plaimtiff'. The partides to this action wvere both of them tradlesmen in the town of Rysg-ate: the-plaintifi' being a lineuidraper, anid the defendant, a farmer, f'ell- mnonger, aud woolstapler. '1'he plaintiff hail furnishied the defend' ant's family with several articlesin hiis line of business; anti it wat to rcovr iil.,thealace o anaccuntfor thiem, that the present actin wa brught He ndestoo tht the dlefence whiceh wouldI he stuptha da wa,tbit he rtileswere furnishedl to thec defend- ant' daghte, a infnt,withut is kniowledge or conisenit, ancl that asthe wee nt ncesaris, ie as not liable to ay for thiem. 1-I woud uiderake o sow tat terewas niothiing in this dlefexice, by uttng he efedan's wn augterinto the witness-box to prove that he ~ods ere urdised t heruponthe credit of hier f-ather. indee, badno ocer mens ofprovng thiat poiint, since the Visitif' hd n aprenicein isaop,andno person was present at the ime f th conrac, exept is wfe.After proving his case, he houd lak orwtilwit cofidncetoa verdict of the jury in favour of his clierdt, AMary Ann Pip&e- aa then put into thie witness-box, and deposed as toiows i:-I amsbe defendent's dauighter. The goodridientioned in this bill were furnishedl to nie. I ens neiw 17 yealrs old. I live 'with mny fathier, who hias a hiouse about halfa mnile frolm Ryegate. l uised to attend in a shop in Rygte, to assist my br6th)er in. carry- in o is businesS. Iet inthe mnorninlg at eighit o'clock, and re- tundin the eveninig. Past of this bill has been paid; I paid it. I pai d two sovereigns, and also two one poundl notes. Soeftha- tilcls in the bill are for a servant of my fathler's, whomn lie had agreed toboar ad cothe. I ordered them. A muslin strI e is toe my sister. A bill of this nature I never saw in myv fairs houge. Thec bill sent into him was for the samne aimouint ; but only contained tise words 1 "by bill delivered." Ctoss.-exaitnined by Mr. Sergeant CRoss-T first went into the~ plaintiff's shtop to buiy a pair of black gloves. The lplaintiff's wife thier asked me whethler I wantedl a sumsmer dress ; I said that il I did, I coultd not pay for it then. She repid, "c it Wou,ld inioke no difference, as I could pay for it lby instanlmeincts when 'I chocse." All thelse articles were fuirnishedl to me. 'I didI net think thev woulti nutount. to so muciih as 201. *M. There are chiarges for satins, laces, and filounces-ulso for a lace Veil. I utsed to wear these dresses at the shop, but never at liome.- I left. themi every night in the care of Ill rs. Sirnmonis, of whom the shop was rented. I re- ceivedl a bill when I paid the two notes- I afterwards received from the Plaintiff another bill. I placed thosce bills in Mrs. Simmone't clock, but as she was afraid thiev mnight be dtscoveretd there, I after- ward6 burned thers. ! a-sked Mrm Aldred not so tell miy father that the thingsp camei to so much. She promised me that she would not., an aid that she oftesgdidi these things for the yosttg people of Rye. gate. The bill amount-s to 201., and it was conatractedI between the mnouths of itlatch and Auguist. I have niever worn tbese things atl hOnle. I have never worn themi in my, father's presrence. By thebonn wrgw JtTICE-"1 I have worn them at churc-h on it Sundav ; b3ut I dlid not go) to the saTne church withi my father and mother." Mrs-. Anne Johnson, a dress-mnaker at Rvegate, deposed that she hand miade a drests and a satin spencer for the last witness-thiat the defenidant's servant had fetched them from her hunse, and tha-t the defendlant's wife had paidI her for m-king thiem up The plaintiff 'as married; ht tkept no apprentices. She sao'nathiing in theplain. tif'rs bill which was niot necee.sarv in such a famlily, as thie defend- ant's, who is a respectable tradesliian.-On her cross.examinntitin, abe said that it mighit be very plea-sant to have such articles, biut thiat. they might be done withnout very well. Mar; Sutton, whoe had lived as scrvantit n the dlefendant's family, deposea that shie was found in clothes by the dlefendanit, so long as she lived with, butt. She isest to the shI,) ot thc plaintiff withi Miss PiPer, who gave her a gowvn andi a shawil. Shec wore those things in thie defendanit's house and presence. She knew that sonic of th`v ar- ticks- in the bill were furnished to Mw' Martha Piper. a chiild only nineycas ofawe Sh als knw tat some articles, a pair of stokins, ad eensen tothedefndat's son.-On her crcots-exa- mnintio, se sid hatillisaPipr hd mionev to paty the pliaintiff The Lno Csiga' TusTrE.-Th fathrr aind mother of Ihit girl are exhiibiting her as a very, wicked y'oungj woman. Mir. Sergeant C9.oes thien adldressed ite jiurv for the defendatit. Though the sum Noughit to lie r-ecove,red in thisi aetion was not large, thle principle involved in it wasot' great interest teseery personi whio , (Ooti:lit the -sicnla'ion of a liareni for courts of latw, lie wascertain, would not enouirag,e individuals who enticed intlints imio proditrahit.y vwithotsi the knowledge of their s.nrents, bint, aim the, contrary, would l,rXect tii parents of inifints so) steduced. aigainst all unfair claimis which suc:h idi:viduals iniight t:iakc uponi t'hem. Nothinge couldl he i-n 're fatal to :i young, femlale thinu to be fuirnished with elegai,t clothe'; unsuitedf to hter rondd o'i, andi fur whichl sihe coyuldt noit i-v inr'e.?d, no, mat;. Of commnon feeling could refiain froint shuddle-ing Whrlie he cawtideredl thi, rxtrentity sto wliich a voting fe-male rmiielit he th riven uinier kict rircumstatscis. And yet, thioug&. ;this was notoriouls c-i every bodyi. fine dresses hia,d been afrorded ipon credit t.) the d'frerdrnt's staug'htc, undler circumistances whidhi lie. woulld shor'ty v Xp1trin to them: - and which, he cont,-nded. weould diePrive tile plIainuff of dll ril rh o recover the! sum for which th:`s tiction was rottght. Thedtlethetlant. whio w.u; a farmrer, with, a large fam-ily, livinigr in the neigitbouthood. oi' Rvezate. hiad set up hi4 ~ion atid daugtteer insa srnall'r.hop titere. with tuec isitertion of' thereby in- cveasingt his Own little inonnie. iNow the defendant's diaughter ans either to be believed, or she was not. If she was not to ba believedi, titere was 'an en(i at Once to Iile plaintiff's case;- and if she was to be blIievL-d, hc~ Was certain that the jury would see it was equally atan ,end. Hecr own story was, that the udreises in quiestion hadl been fur- nl'hed to hterelartlestitnelv, and that fite bud always worn them clan- Ae-dine]v, taking them off valien she went lionsti to herfather's house, tind putfing thlem On again whlen site returned to the sliop. 'Vas. then1, sthe plaintiff enistiled to'turn round uipon the dlefendlant and s;av, "Seis your (laughter ; T fuirnishedl threc dresses to her as tie- c sssries; andi YOu Must pa3Y for theta ?" Certainly not. Ott this question lie would read to ttern what had been Wad by a leartitel iudge oft'the last century. An action had been brouight to recover 30]., being the armount ofra mnfiler's MiR for ornamnsctal appa,el furnisk. cdto a voung truman utilderaae. ThelearnetI judge aid, " NO mla!) shallI dictate toea pareilt what'clothinig his childhal wear orwheni. -or froni whom, he slhall purchase it. Suchi a muatter mutst be left to the discretion of' every parent, who must be the best judge of lila own circumnstances4; andI as here is no pretence that the cbild was not proper-ly furnislied withi all necessaiesia becoming hier condition, we mnust not encourag2 a perso-i who leas itiveigled a young wornan in- to the piurchase ot' extravagant dresses withiout thle Icrowlege and consent of her parente." (Aoidd there be any casKe, tii which the dictum of the learned judge crunld be better applied thati the pee. scent ? Hfad it been proved that the articles su.pplied wVera necessa- ries ? iNot a word of the kind ; oni tee rentrarv,it appeared that there was niothing in the shiape of a ntecessary except a pair of stockings sient ta the son, and a frock afforded to a young daughter of the de- fendanit. Upon this the plaintiff hoped thlat be shotild be chibc to hang verdict ; but lie trusted that the juiry would dlisappoint Ihis hopes by, recoillecting tdust the plaintif f had already received 41. on account, which, wits more than sufficient to cover the value of those articles. The learned counsel then proceeded to stote, that as the girl in liere evidence had referred to Mrs. Sitaimoiss and her brother, he shlould call themn into the witness-box to corroborate her acc-ount; ar.d if they did so, lie contende-d thlat thie jury must return a verdict for hiis client. Mrs. airnimons was thun examined. She deposed as follorsit The defendant's son and daughter kept a shop at myv hootse f0r t"e Purpose o' selling u-luves and iters. I recolle'ct the timie when ?base geols were delivered by, Nplaintiff to Mlary Attn Piper, It SidU not mention the circumnstance to her father, T`h1, LORD CMCEv JUSTrmcL.-Why did you not ? The weitne.,2 gave no ainswer. TheC L,Ot RDx tsI'.w JUTssr Cg-Veou acied very shamefully iii not. communicating this Cireumnsta-ice to this, ybung womian's fathier. Thewitnes contmnsed.-.-ilary Anti kejst these t'nings at my,houie.: Site changed her dress every day when sihe c-ame to and went flro Ilv house. Two bills, were sent in to hier at iry housec by tile plaiin- Whkemt he brought in his lart hlii, lie atsked foe stoic niotty. t c ha tisle would give hiii sautie slhortly, bitt ilesired biun niot Shie ?K'tlU t--ie and niothei of it. He said, "4 Very well." She totell tiser .''Ii.qi ol,b,isamnq Valt to pac5 th I'l . aetol Ott herrror,;Cai.'1xs tiosh tae thatheMeonn uedantcme o hi abopn hr hue~nCca wcC..- gJegeneriflycano tbTIziicm ing;tha i'mtike.tdaYat v~"te.Miss Piper was niever dressed in te sop i he ~ncy o ri'at ay.Witness never saw M1Viss Pipe in whie sain sence.H robrther wits generally aWav from diesho buyng wol.'Witesswits a married wom-nan, andl Witnesses were then called to prov~e that the girl hadlT- pai -_!t -cc. count tottepanif On the occasion wlhen she p2lid the last ini. attainment, h etit the plalintiff's bouts by the back door It was; onl a Snymsnng. I Tue brte oftegrl w;as then pith into ift~ box. Ilie deposedI that lie bad neve seenl is sister ili these clothes. .llr Sergzeant PEXL then replied uipon the evidence, Hie told, tl'- jury th~at the question-for themi to decide was ttl;s-wocre or were! owt I th e thing mentioned in the bill, amanmotoingtoc 161., furnishied to the defendant's danigitter on thec credlit anti with the knowledge of' her f xthcr ? It was not necessary that the defentlant should expressly order the plalintiff to f'urnishg his uhatigitter with these articles. There anigiLhi an mplid aswellas s expess credit ; for if' the def'enid- ant,on larnig tht hi dauhterhad eenfurnislteh wvith thecse arti. 1 des y te paintff,dispproed f te Wiaintiff's conduct, he otigist1 to hae goe to he paintif im ediat, and to have toldI himi to sakebac th ~eods e hd alead set to his daughiter, and to take stareto snd he no ore. f hedidlot do) this. fie recogniized ithe contractwbicl the girl hail matil. and wa.s liable "or the goodas {eMhtil slie had purchased. Now he rontenuled that the eviflence fully pro'ved that the defendant had, by his concluct, recoignized thea contract ; e'or was it fposible to believe that lie liad niever seen hier in tlhese clothtes, even supposing hier salot to he trUe that she never pitt them o;i ex, cept iviteta she wait in tile slhop ? The dlefendrint, the witnesses stat. sal, caine to the sliop once a-week, and tht onee 'on the I ntire-dy 'W's it lAikly thiat site, wlho figured away so bravely every, other day in th is eek, would strip hierself of her finerv on that dlay, atid cit'uit herselff only in the eress of a fianner's: dAu!gh. ed some surprise to her friends in Ryveste ? and if it would, won lId not they bhave communilcated it to bCer fthier as an extraordinarg cir- Cumnstalce, rcqqirjinj the strictest investigation 7 His learned Mriend had told themr tt ere wa;s no evidence tlhitt these articles were ne- gessary to the rirl's condition in life. He denied the fact; but even allowing it to beenw, hie coiatinded tiat it lay upon O,e defendant ,to show that he bad suipplied his. sdaughter with aU, thinrs proper to her condition. This egidenoc the defentlant hiad failed to produce antd he-mnst take thtecinsequenCe ot it. Allowing thidt the (leFerid' ant had not aiginally ordered these clothes5 ttiU when he fs3,na' that they mere suoplie' he ought to liave sent ihem back to.thlc plaintiff. T'his ad not.been done up to tiwe present day,and he there- fore trusted tlhatthe'.jury wouliby their verdict comp l thc ,defnd. ant eo.pay4forlse. goeds.which )e had never thouglht of sunding bad5 to the plaintiff. - ' Tha Louib CHIEP JVUSlI CE ordeted thie defendaant's daumglter to ie again placed in the witsess-box, . fJt answeretdoLuestions put byhis loR dspltipshe s4d that her fa. tlier liad ecen her wegy part of theme clothes since the action had been b3rought. t3e 4tncit -knhw sewihat haid'becorne of thcothei pyat. She h1a4 irpt tdie4h,twbiqbdse paid' 't te plaintiff; partly from, mtoney 'selibdi abe 'o6 for v;4rI done,aid'V artir fri3ti money of"her fathier's "ahich ashc fmitw en withlout lzavy S I'd li. d-borrdwed3'thc two so. 'vreies frsdni'a i 'youd1'carp entU Of time isanle of Nightingale, with Vul-omi sh'e'a acqusited. The 1jongTAitrF JwUTlcg: told the jury that this was an as- - tiot of rcain imiortance tothli public. Wbatever slifferetce'ofQpinion 'iirht exist upNin other ponts of the csse, be wga sire that there eop prsndpl'uv3is'sdIn it, xeqavh'ng which; no.icrson,iE-tat aS;u-.t tr*trioX3.!fgdt 31 3, tat wat3 .b t 1 T"_U'I,U nisled articles of dress tOayoungo romanwitbdog t i hWS g: ', h-ar rents unfittedfor herisituali in life, andf6rwbi ,-O c n, at'is of pYvment, he wsx attemptiogto do her the greqte?.poieiblh m.schief, HI-e was crerting feeltngs and wishes in ,hr mhr , whe were likely tolead her from the-patbs of virtue, by' induetrik her tb apply the money of her parentsj or tLe rnoney whic she nkglit get in a worseway, to pay for the articles of dress wbieh she 1dprot cured. Imleed, hi did not knowof aay greater eniy o l virtue thtarn the man wiho coauld iurnlshagirl in thealtuauoti oi the defendant's daughter with fine clothes, wit0out the kn6wledgc and 'order of her parents. The sum sought to be recovered by this acton was'161. and lie waatafraid that theplaintiff-ustbaveaverlict for a part of it. If the girl had Slid that the money which sbe had applied in the payment of thisblhden tan nirl from lier fatier, he shonuld have dbesired them to appl t t . articles which it was evident were supplied with the ather's con- sent ; but that was not the case: she had, unfortunately, obliged to appl2 tor it to a young carpenter, and thereffre he vas afraid thnt they rmust tive their verdict tor the plaintiff,for the vlaue of the dress f'nriished for the eservaut girl, oftthe roc ur fo the child Itlartha, and of some other articles. After conden.. inag the conduct oft MIrs. Simnmons in strung ternt, aTd lamentng thiat there was a shop in RyegateBconduct edn iple5 ogiig young wvomen credit for articles of' dress obtiewthu the knowleduteof their parents, his Lordshli proceeded to declare, that if the defendant disapprovedl of th6 p ain~,i~snin h clothel'to his daughtfr, he oughit to have returnedesen th l tiff as soon us lie fesrned that his dawtghster hadl recevdtea fh did not so return tlheni he recognizeld his dauglhte's caa, ajd miust make it goodl. R4ow, thje girl had admitted htsehdwr thesc cloth"s, and that her father htid seen heii wearing them, since he knew them to have been furnish,ed by the plain W., opt that a recognition ot the contract made by the daughter. Ifthe Jury thloughi so, then he wzs afraidl tbAt they mutst firida verdc h whole sum for te laintiff; at all events, they m4st find?a yor ict foir hinm' to the value of the-articles which he had before enumerated to them. hut whiether that value wasi to he taken at the rate fixed in thebill, orat some otherrate was a point which he Should leave it to them to decide. Hie would now leave them to consider of their verdict. Air. Sergeant CRoss begged to remind his Lordship, that if the plaintiffhlad made a contract with the daughter, it was not comipe- tent for the father to rescind it. It was part of his case, that a on. tract had been made by the daughter. The LORD CLInMr JUSTI E said, that the question appeared to I hin to be, not wlhetther the father had rescinded the contract, but whether ibe had not recognized it; and as such hie had left it to the jut ir. Sergeant CROss asked his Lordship to take a note of his ob- jection. Thle LonD CHIEV JUSTICE.-CCrtainly I will. If it is fair to say it, I have been looking out for a nonsuit, from the beginning to I the end of the case; but I could not find it. The Jury then considered of their verdict. After they had-been conaidering of it for some minutes, TheLORD CrIEr JustiCE said, that apointhad just struck him, which he thought it right to tnaction to them. There was no evidence before them that a bill hati been delivered to the defendant before this action was brought. and that consideration would, per- I:aps. getrid of tho diffiulty of the recognition. Thc Jurv, after a mniment's consideration, returned a verdict for tke plaintift'-Da:nages, 61. HUt'T V. MITCHELL. Tihis was an action bv a ladly, to recover of the defendant, who is an auctioneer residintg in Nortonfalgate, thu sum of 1621., vvhichl shie had paid to him as a deposit on the purchase of some propertd described as "a valuable and secure ground-rent, equal to irecnol, fur a term of 70 years, subject only to a pappor-corm rent." The de- fence sot up was, that upon examining the conditions ofsale, it must have been evidenit that the property to be sold was not a ground- rent; and that therefore the plaintiffcould not have been deluded by ilium. 'rho LORD CettEas JUSTICE lield, that the dlescription Outght to he such as to mislead nobody of cettnmpn apprehension. The Jurv accorlingly tbund a verdict for the plainriff_Dan,ages COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, GUILTDHALL, JULY I.