SIMARD

Jugé: Qu Capital, et r A) (3R, £,

DUXN vs

Jugé: Qu Instruction Ord. de 166’

(1) V, art (2) V, art

a this ; had Je one s 131

docs

‘omhie e peut tretien

t was » sinirotect tance, ren in nits to nages e, but ith à ,With ound,

that o the 3.)

Lires à S que it ex-

4d to hout

his authorization, and that the articles were of luxury and extravagance, At enquéte, it appeared that Mrs Heney was the daughter of the late Hon. Judge Foucher, and the wife of an alderman of the City of Montreal ; that articles of dress of similar description as those bought by Mrs Heney, both as to quantity and quality, were worn by ladies in a society below that in which Mr H. allowed his lady to move ; that they lived happily together, and had entertained and were entertained by the Governor:; that Mr H. gencrally saw the articles worn by his lady, and, especially, a rich embroidered robe and thread lace trimming, to reccive the Governor at her house, and a satin slip and turban, with ostrich feathers, to attend his levee. The Court below reduced the account to {21 11s. 5d., and rejected 4-5th's of the account «us extravagant and luæurious. In appeal, this judgment was confirmed, the appellants (milliners) being condemned to pay the costs of appeal. The Court cited two cases from Dallas and 5 Tunnton, p. 356, Bentley vs Griffin. (GR. L, 460; 1 R. C, 484.) .