A CURIODS LAWSUIT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2132, 2 December 1890, Page 3

A CURIODS LAWSUIT.

In the Queen’s Bench the other week the case of Morris v. Barboux come on for trial. It was to recsver damages for malicious prosecution, ■lander, and wrongful dismissal; and there was also a claim for wages due and the amount of disbursements which the plaintiff had made for the defendant. The defendant, it was said, was formerly a Mrs Dilke. She became a widow in 1877, and in 1884 the plaintiff entered her service as waiting woman and nurse. In 1887 the defendant married a Belgian gentleman named Barboux, but they disagreed, and in the following year she left him, came to England, and went to Jive at Richmond. The plaintiff continued with her until 29th July, 1889, when she was dismissed in consequence of quarrels between her and defendant’s boy. The plaintiff accused the defendant of improper intimacy with two gentlemen who had been in the habit of calling upon her at Richmond. There was due to the plaintiff about £35 for ten months’ wages, and about £SO for disbursements she had made. She asked for the money, but the defendant said that her cousin, Mr Meacock, bad advised her not to pay, and that plaintiff must sue M. Barboux. The defsndant said that the plaintiff had not been a friend to her, but the plaintiff replied that her evidence had obtained the defendant’s divorce. This was in March, 1889. The defendant said that if she had committed adultery with two gentlemen, the plaintiff Lad committed adultery with M. Barboux. Subsequently plaintiff’s box was sent away, and she was refused admission to the house. She found that her box did not contain a photograph of the madame’s boy, which belonged to her, and she went to the house to ask for it on more than one occassion On one of these visits she went into the drawingroom, and seeing a photograph that was exactly like hers she took it. She was thereupon charged with having stolen it and committed for trial at the quarter sessions at Kingston. The grand jury afterwards threw out the bill, and this was the prosecution which was now complained of. The plaintiff deposed to the circumstances above stated. She also said that she was one of the persons who sat in a window in Regent-street as an advertisement for hair restorer. (Laughter). She went there in October, and was still there. She did not owe to that the luxuriance of her hair, but she did not tell the public so. Eventually an arrangement was come to, and the case was withdrawn.