The keeper of a noted bagnio

A cause was tried by a special jury, in the court of king's bench, in which the keeper of a noted bagnio was plaintiff, and a noted whitster* in Surrey defendant. The action was brought for the recovery of the remainder of a bill, of which 525l. had been paid.

Year	Date	£	s	d
1767	From 17 Dec to Jan 3 1768	71l.	19s.	3d.
	Cash for ladies	101l.	10s.	0d.
1768	From 17 Mar to 17 May	158l.	11s.	5d.
	From 15 Jun to 14 Jul	374l.	11s.	6d.
	Cash for ladies	79l.	0s.	0d.
	From 27 Aug to 13 Sep	569l.	18s.	0d.
	27 Aug cash lent	25l.	0s.	0d.
	For jellies	87l.	0s.	0d.
	Total	1290l.	11s.	0d.
	Deduct for draught paid	525l.	0s.	0d.
	Balance due	765l.	11s.	0d.

The plaintiff produced three witnesses to support her action, two of whom proved the whole charge to be unjust, and the evidence of the third was totally discredited. The jury, without going out of court, found a verdict for the defendant, with costs of suit. The defendant being a married man, the plaintiff presumed he would have paid the bill to prevent his being exposed. But the exorbitancy of the demand determined him to punish the injustice of it.

It is probably worth noting that, according to the National Archive currency converter, in 1770 £1,290 11s 0d would have the same spending worth of, in 2005, £82,195.13 and that his outstanding balance was the equivalent of £48,757.88 which is, by anyone's standards, a fairly impressive bill for 10 months shagging.

Mind you since he'd already paid the equivalent of £33,437.25 the plaintiff seems to have prospered from his custom!

His wife's reaction is not recorded.

* a person who whitens or bleaches clothes