The Court of Queen's Bench, on Monday, tried an action
brought by Mr. Harvey, a carpet-manufacturer in the Westminster Road, against the Honourable George Norton. The plaintiff's object was to recover the stun of 49/. Ils. 24d. for goods delivered to Mrs. Norton, when that
lady, after separating from her husband, was furnishing a. house in Bolton Street, which site occupied together with her uncle Mr. Sheridan. It appeared that the sum-total of Mrs. Norton's purchase was 92/. ; but of this a considerable portion, Mrs. Norton said when called upon for payment, was for Mr. Sheridan ; and that gentleman subsequently discharged his share of the account, leaving the balance above-men- tioned to be paid by Mrs. Norton. Not being able to obtain the money , from Mrs. Norton, the plaintiff applied to Mr. Norton ; who referred the matter to his lawyer ; and it was finally brought into court. On the part of the plaintiff, an attempt was made to prove that Mrs. Norton was iu "exclusive occupation" of a part of the house in Bolton Street ; but cross-examination of servants and other witnesses showed that Mr. Sheridan and his niece lived together as members of the same family— using the same drawing-room and dining-room. There was no evi- dence to prove that Mrs. Norton was lessee of the house, but every reason to suppose that Mr. She ri4Jan WA`, and that he let part of it to Mrs. Norton. Under these ciremnstances, it was contended that Mr. Norton was not bound to pay the bill. As leis wife was living apart from him by his desire, lie was under an obligation t•.) provide her with necessaries suitabie to her station in life, jut imt ta supply Mr. Sheridan with means of letting furnished lodgings. Lord Denman's charge was thus far adverse to time plaintiff's claim; and Cie Jury, without leaving the box, found a verdict for the defendant.
Previous page
