The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-29 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Charmll.)
COOPER V. WELLX.

This was an actiOriTicleit"by Miss Cooper, • young
lady who had been in the service of the defendant, Mr.
Wells, • medical man residing in the neighbourhood of
Grosvenor-square, and occupying • cottage at Hampstead,
to recover damages for improper dismissal, and also to
recover possession of certain anonymous letters which
had been addressed to her, and which she had
handed over to Mrs. Wells with a view to the discovery of
the writer. These, as well as other anonymous letters ad-
dressed to Mrs. Wells, were of so abominable • nature that
they could not be made public, and the anbetantial de-
fence to the action being that the plaintiff herself was the
author, the question really resolved itself into one of cha-
racter. The trial took place at Guildhall, before the
Lord Chief Baron, and occupied the greater part of two
days. The jury found on the Brat count, for the dismissal,
a verdict for the plaintiff with 51. damages ; and on the
second court, which was in trover for the recovery of the
letters, they found that there was not sufficient evidence
to satisfy them that the plaintiff was the writer of the
letters, and thereupon, under the direction of the learned
judge, they gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 1001.
Last term • rule was obtained on the part of the defendant
for a new trial, or to enter a verdict for the defendant on
the second count, and it now came on for argument.
The Lord Chief Baron read over the whole of his notes
of the evidence, and also the letters which were read in
open court. The other letters were shown to the other
learned barons.

Mr. Serjeant O'Brien and Mr. Beasley appeared on the
part of the defendant, and Mr. Serjcant Robinson and Mr.
Joyce on the other ride.
The Lord Chief Baron said at the trial the counsel for
the defendant took this objection upon the count for
trove,, that the letters reflected so senously on Mrs. Wells
and Miss Cooper, and were of such a character, that it be-
came the duty of Mrs. Wells to retain them at least a
reasonable time for the purpose of ascertaining the author
of them. He also contended that there could be no pro-
perty in such letters, and that on this count the verdict
ought to be for the defendant. When the case came before
this court they only granted a rule on the count for trover,
and if the plaintiff now thought fit to abandon that count
the public time ought not to be occupied in discussing the
question.
Mr. Baron Bramwell was by no means sure that the
burden of proof as to the property in the letters was not on
the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Baron—Brother Robinson, is it worth
your while to arpe the matter!
Mr. t Robinson—As fax as my client is concerned
I cannlertatfp feeling the difßculty pointed out. Sup-
posing Miss Cooper did not write these letters, I shall
contend that she is entitled to recover them. This is
almost a matter of life and death to Miss Cooper, and I
am reluctant to make any admission or do anything which
would imply that she was the writer of the letters.
The Lord Chief Baron—No one can expect you to make
any such admission, but the court may think the evidence
not quite satisfactory, and may send the ease down spin
for trial. Might not these miserable letters be given up,
and a verdict for nominal damages entered on the count
for trove, ?

Mr. liaririn Bramwell—World it not be a good thing to
get a lighted candle and burn them ?
Mr. Serjeant Robinson—l think so.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Then the only question is, who
shall be the executioner, you or brother O'Brien!
After seine further discussion,
The Lord Chief Baron said bethought it would be best
for public decency, and the interest of both parties, that
the jury should be discharged on the count for trover, and
that the lettershould be burnt by the two learned
counsel between them.

Mr. Serjeant O'Brien—! am ready to assent to that, and
only wish it to he understood that from beginning to end
of the affair. Mr. and Mrs. Wells have acted with the
strictest propriety.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson—l never made any suggestion in
a trary sense.
Itcon was then agreed that the case should be terminated
by the jury being discharged on the second count, and by
the letters being immediately burnt.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CUL e. GYLL

...
Mr. Hawkins, QC. Dr. Spinks, Q.C., and Mr. Thesiger
for the plaintiff. Mr. )(misty, Q.C., Dr. Deane, Q.C., and
Mr. Inderwick for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Mr. Gordon Gyll, provided the will and
six codicils of his brother, Mr. Brook Hamilton 0711, late
of Wraysbury, Bucks, who died at the are of 70, on the
sth of Demmber, 1865. The instruments in question were
dated respectively July 21, 1833, July 13, 1849, March 12
and 27, May I, and September 6 1858, and July 30, 1862.
Probate of the court for codicils was opposed by another
brother of the deceased, Sir Robert Gyll, on the usual
grounds of undue excess, want of capacity' and undue influ-
ence, to which were added a plea of fraud and an allegation
that at the date of the instruments the testator did not
know and approve of their contents.
The defendant was originally a cavalry officer, but he
bad afterwards purchased a commission in the Gnarls,
and on becoming senior Exon was knighted. The testator
left his Wraysbury estate to the plaintiff in tell male
with remainder to his brother Hamilton, and afterwards
to Sir Robert. To Sir Robert he alio gave a legacy of 500/.
mid en annuity of 1251. ; but in 1858 he became annoyed
by Sir Robert's conduct, and something like a quarrel
between them ensued. In consequence of this the testator
by his later codicils revoked the benefits he had conferred
uT on him.

`Theaaaa, which appears to be an exceedingly min' ter-
' g one, was not concluded.