Mr Poyser, barrister (instructed by Mr Jacobs, of Rushden), represented plaintiff; Mr Griffith Jones, barrister (instructed by Mr Morigau, Wellingborough), was for defendant.

This case, which had been adjourned from a previous Court, was heard before a jury.

Mr Poyser said the case was an important one, because on the last occasion there was a

STRONG CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE

and his Honour desired that jury should try it in order that they might determine who was telling the truth. In 1900 plaintiff’s husband became a bankrupt. Before that, plaintiff, who owned the furniture, had signed certain promissory notes. In July, 1900, judgement was recovered against her, and the Sheriff entered into possession. On July 24th she went to defendant and asked him to lend her enough money to pay out the Sheriff’s officer. Mr Bates visited her house, inspected the furniture and advanced her the money, and a hire-purchase agreement on the furniture was signed. Plaintiff went to Northampton with the £30 to pay out the Sheriff’s officer, but finding it was not enough she returned and got another £3. The agreement provided for the repayment of the money by instalments, and she paid until, in April last, £3 was owning according to the terms of the agreement, but not according to what had been actually advanced. In January defendant advanced a further £20 in some jewellery. On April 14, defendant sent County Court bailiffs to the house, and they stripped it of furniture, leaving her

NOT SUFFICIENT BEDDING

to lie upon. For that he asked the jury for heavy damages as well as the value of the furniture. Could they imagine a more wicked thing for a man who posed as a public philanthropist? The actual sum for which this agreement was signed, and the actual sum paid to him by plaintiff had been paid back with £1 over and there was only £3 owing under the agreement. Yet he swept her house clean, leaving her and her children lying on the floor. In August plaintiff was confined, and for the want of proper comforts around her suffered severely, and had not yet recovered her strength.

The Judge said the issue the jury had to decide was whether defendant bought the goods, which he said he did, or whether (as plaintiff said) he only lent her the money on security of the furniture, and that he no right to the furniture because she paid him back. The parties contradicted one another point black, and it was for the jury to decide

WHO WAS TELLING A LIE.

Plaintiff, who was accommodated with a seat near the Judge and jury, detailed the transaction between herself and defendant, and said she did not read the agreement, nor was it read to her. All that was left in the house when the furniture was seized were two beds for the children, and a flock bed for herself and her husband, with no blanket or anything of the kind.

Mrs Sharpe cried piteously as she spoke of the distress caused to the children, and indignantly resented injection by Mr Griffith Jones that she had a worthless husband.

Mr Griffith Jones cross-examined Mrs Sharpe with some warmth. He referred to Mr Sharpe as witness’s rotten husband.

Upon this, Mrs Sharpe rose excitedly, exclaiming “You say my husband is rotten. He is not. You dare say he is rotten. He is a good husband.”

Mr Poyser also protested, and there were loud voices at the rear of the Court. Mr Sharpe stepped forward, and witness shouted “This is my husband. Does he look

A ROTTEN HUSBAND?

Do you know the meaning of the word?”

The Judge: Mr Jones, may I ask you to recall that observation?

Mr Jones: I will, sir.

The Judge: I think it was quite uncalled for, quite unnecessary, and likely to produce hysteria.

Mr Jones: I will withdraw the word “rotten” and say a man who was at the time a bankrupt.

The Judge: That is quite a different thing.

Another scene threatened when Mr Jones put it to witness: You and your husband got £38 from this poor man Bates?

Witness replied heatedly: My husband was not in the house. Don’t blame him: he has nothing to do with it.

A few minutes later the Judge interposed during the cross-examination, saying: I think Mr Jones, you are

UNNECESSARILY EMPHATIC:

– I won’t use another word.

Mr Jones: Very well. They have been heaping the coals against this man, who has done a kindly act.

The Judge: This is a woman. She is in the witness box, and must be protected. I must say your tone and demeanour are only likely to irritate her.

Mr Jones: They have been heaping the coals against this man, who has done a kindly act.

The Judge: He is the defendant in the action; if he is right the Court will decide.

In further cross-examination plaintiff admitted that defendant had made her other loans which had not been repaid, nor interest; but with respect to certain jewellery which had been redeemed from pawn by the defendant, she said that Mrs Bates held the jewellery.

Mr Jones having used an expression about a well-known

DECEASED GENTLEMAN OF RUSHDEN

who was formerly concerned in plaintiff’s affairs, the judge said Mr Jones was exceeding his privilege in using the expression, and requested the Press representatives not to repeat it.

In reply to the Judge, plaintiff said she thought defendant ought not to have taken more of the furniture than was sufficient to meet the £3.

His Honour pointed out that by the terms of the agreement the furniture remained the actual and sole property of Bates until full payment was made.

This closed the plaintiff’s case, and, as it was intimated that the defence would occupy some time, His Honour adjourned the case till after Christmas.

The Rushden Echo 26 January 1906

SETTLED AT LAST – At Northampton Country Court on Wednesday, the case of Emma Sharpe, wife of Harry Sharpe, musician, Rushden v. Matthew Bates, second-hand furniture dealer, Rushden, came before his Honour Judge Sir Thomas Snagge and Jury for the third time. Plaintiff claimed for the return of furniture, or value, £40, and damages for trespass and unlawful removal, £60 (£100 in all). There was a counter-claim for £28 3 4, money lent. – In 1900 plaintiff’s husband became a bankrupt. Plaintiff held the furniture, and a judgement having, it was said, been entered against her, the Sheriff’s officer entered into possession. Plaintiff obtained defendant’s assistance to pay the Sheriff’s officer out, and arrangements were made whereby plaintiff retained possession of the furniture. The matter in dispute chiefly turned on whether the money advanced to plaintiff by defendant was in purchase of the furniture, or whether it was a loan with the furniture as security. A hire-purchase agreement upon the furniture, which was said to have been agreed to between the defendant and plaintiff entered material into the issue. – Mr AG Poyser, barrister, was for the plaintiff and Mr Griffith Jones, barrister for the defendant. – At Wednesday’s hearing nearly two hours were occupied in submitting and arguing legal points. – Mr Jones then addresses the Jury, and submitted that the transaction was an out-and-out sale, and that the furniture was re-let to the plaintiff at 5’- per week. – Mr Poyser contended that it was a loan transaction, and asked for exemplary damages. – In reply to questions put to the Judge, the Jury, after consulting in private, found that the transaction was a loan. They awarded £80 damages, to be reduced to £40 if the goods were returned in 14 days. – His Honour entered judgement accordingly with costs, less the admitted counter claim. – Stay of execution was granted.