.jpg)
Family: Colonel John Whitehead Peard / Catherine Augusta Richards/PEARD
» Group Sheet «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next» » Slide Show
MARY NAPIER v. JOHN WHITEHEAD PEARD; Governess; Tothill House, Plymouth report Wed 01 Oct 1851
Western Courier, West of England Conservative, Plymouth and Devonport Advertiser - Wednesday 01 October 1851
MARY NAPIER v. JOHN WHITEHEAD PEARD
The plaintiff was a governess in the employ of the de-
fendant, who is a barrister-at-law, and resided at Tothill
House, Plymouth. The action was brought to recover
£38 13s alleged to be due on an agreement between the
parties, which had been broken by the defendant.
Mr Lavers, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Edmonds,
for the defendant.
It appeared the plaintiff had entered into an engagement
with Mr. Peard, to serve him as governess ; it was a yearly
engagement, she commenced it in July, 1840; and it was
terminated February 8th, 1851; Miss Napier had just pre-
vious to that time, been attending closely to Mrs. Peard, who
had been very ill; she had remained up with her 17 nights:
about that period the manner of Mr. Peard altered towards
her, and at length some words took place between them,
concerning the management of the children—Miss Napier
insisting that she should have the sole care of them, and
that Mr. Peard should not interfere with her rules. The
day succeeding that on which she had expressed herself so
freely, Mr Peard told her she had been insolent and offen-
sive n her manner, and gave her notice to leave at midsum
mer ; Miss Napier became excited, and told Mr Peard that
he was not acting in a gentlemanly manner towards her;
this widened the breach, and succeeding interviews having
the same effect,—Mr Peard retracted his former notice, on
the ground that three months’ notice was all that was re-
quired in the case of governesses, and gave her three months’
notice, and subsequently he dismissed her summarily, and
offered her her wages up to May, or, for a period of three
months ; this she declined to take, and brought the action
for six months’ salary, and board for that portion of the six
months, between April 8th and Midsummer.
His Honor stated he should take time to consider his
judgment.
By the time this case was closed, the day was far ad-
vanced—it being nearly ten o'clock—the remainder of the
cases were adjourned until the next Court Day, and the
Court rose.
STONEHOUSE COUNTY COURT.—Tuesday.
W. M. Praed, Esq., Judge.
In the case of Mary Napier v. John Whitehead Peards
reported last week,
His Honor said that he had hoped that the parties would
have acted on the suggestion that he let fall on the first
hearing of the case, and have settled it out of Court, for it
was very clear that the defendant thought the plaintiff was
entitled to some remuneration for her services, as he offered
her a quarter’s salary. Now it was very clear in this case
that if she was entitled to a quarter’s salary she was just as
much entitled to her whole claim, namely, a half-year’s
salary, and, therefore, he should order the defendant to pay
£25, the amount of the claim, and £5 costs.
Western Courier, West of England Conservative, Plymouth and Devonport Advertiser - Wednesday 08 October 1851
Western Courier, West of England Conservative, Plymouth and Devonport Advertiser - Wednesday 01 October 1851
via lllllll
| Owner of original | Western Courier, West of England Conservative, Plymouth and Devonport Advertiser |
| Date | 1 Oct 1851 |
| Linked to | Tothill House, Plymouth Charles, Plymouth, Devon; Family: Peard/Richards/PEARD (F2751); Ada Peard; Catherine Matilda Peard; Hester Mary Peard, LRBV-11L; Colonel John Whitehead Peard; Alice Peard/KENDALL; Emily Peard/PURCELL; Catherine Augusta Richards/PEARD |
» Group Sheet «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next» » Slide Show