The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-25 00:00:00

MITCHELL r. LACZT.

Mr. fierjeant T. Atkinson said this was an action tried
at Guildhall before Mr. Justice Lush, when the jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant. It was an action for
negligence in so conducting a Turkish bath whereby the
plaintiff was severely burnt. The learned counsel moved
for a rale for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict
was against evidence, and surprise. The Turkish bath in
question was situated iu Commercial-road Feat, and when
the plaintiff was in the hot chamber he felt faint, and
called to the assistant. He heard him on the third call,
and on coming into the room plaintiff asked him for a
glass of water. The assistant left to get the water, but he
remained away so long—upwards of five minutes—that
the plaintiff, overcome with faintness, fell on the hot
tiles, and was severely burnt on the whole of one aide.
Mr. Justice Lush said the evidence for the defendant
WM that no delay or negligence took place. The assistant
fetched the water immediately, and it was whilst the
plaintiff was drinking the water that he fainted and fell.
The plaintiff was a very heavy man, and the assistant got
him out of the room as quickly as possible. The medical
man said that if the plaintiff had consulted him, he should
have objected to his taking a Turkish bath. Ho (the
learned judge) was not dissatisfied with the verdict.
Rule refused.

BAIL COURT.-Apßii 24.

Sittinp at Nisi Prins at Westminster.—(Before Hr. Justice
Sheet and Common Juries.)
• • • •

His lordship was occupied until he had to rise to attend
chambers, about the middle of the day, in hearing a part.
heard case of no particular interest. IVe therefore relent,
our report.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-APRIL 24.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)

COOPER I. WELLS.
This was en action by Miss Cooper, governess, against a
surgeon in practice at the West-end, and having a resi-
dence at Hampstead, to recover damages for wrongful
dismissal from his service, and also to recover the ponies-
aim of certain anonymous letters whieh had been ad-
dressed to her. The trial, which extended over the greater
part of two days, took place at Cluildhsli before the Lord
Chief Baron, when the jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff with N. damages for the wrongful dismissal, and also
a verdict for the plaintiff on the count in trover, with
100/, damages, to be reduced to le. in the event of the
letters being returned.
Mr. Serjeant O'Brien on the part of the defendant
now moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict
was against the evidence, and also by leave reserved to
enter a verdict for the defendant on the second count, on
the ground that the plaintiff had no property in the
anonymous letters. The principal question was whether
the plaintiff was the write* of those letters. It was a
singular case and surrounded by that fund of interest
which generally belonged to an undiscovered mystery, but
he confidently believed that when the letters were closely
examined they would themselves yield up the secret and
point to the real author. He ventured to say that the
evidence in the case fell little short of demonstration
that the plaintiff herself was the writer.
The Lord Chief Baron—You must first deal with the
preliminary question, whether, even supposing the letters
are in the plaintiff's hand-writing, they are not still her
property, so as to entitle her to a verdict on the trover
count.

Mr. Serjeant O'Brien said that Miss Cooper entered the
service of the defendant as governess to his children in
February or March, 1865, and appeared to have conducted
herself with great propriety until she left. She and the
servants and two children lived in a cottage at Hampstead,
while Mr. and Mrs. Wells resided at their house in town.
In December, 1865, two or three anonymous letters,
addressed to Miss Cooper. were delivered at the house,
and she handed them to Mrs. Wells. Singularly enough,
the writer complained of Miss Cooper's conduct to the
children, and said that when she went out she met and
walked with gentlemen, and neglected the children. Mrs.
Wells told her to pay no attention to anonymous letters,
adding she did not herself, and took the first letter shown
to her and threw it in the fire. She also told her if any
more letters in the Fame hand-writing, came, she was
not to open them, but to hand them to her. In Mirch, 1886,
another letter of the most fearful obscenity came. It was
addressed to Miss Cooper, and contained the foulest impu-
tations both upon her and Mrs. Wells. Miss Cooper banded
it unopened to Mrs. Wells, who kept it for the purpose of
discoveries the writer. A second, a third, and a fourthof
the same Character were received, and Mrs. Wells made it
known among the servants, who consisted of a nurse, •
general servant, a gardener, and a charwoman, that she
would give IW. reward for the discovery of the author.
She also dismissed one of the servants. This, however, did
not stop the letters. One addressed to Miss Cooper referred
to an incident which occurred in the house two days
before it was smitten. One of the servants had the tooth-
ache, and Mrs. Wells gave her some chloroform, and the
writer said that Mrs. Wells had nearly slept • servant to
death. This affsir could only have been known to the
servants in the house and this young woman, or to some
one to whom it might have been communicated. In
another letter it was said that Miss Cooper would have to
take charge of all the children, and that while she would
have all the trouble the nurse would have all the credit.
In November Mrs. Wells suspected herof being the writer,
and ultimately it was arranged that she should leave at
Christmas, the state of her health being one of the reasons
given by Mrs. Wells. A day or two afterwards another
letter was received in which this circumstance was men.
tioned.

The Lord Chief Baron—Your cue is that no one knew of
this circumstance except Miss Cooper and Mrs. Wells.
. .

Mr. Serjeant O'Brien—Precisely. The letter was as fol-
lows :—` Now, Mims Cooper, you see that what I told you
has come to pair: Mrs. Wells is going to send you away,
and pretends it is your health. She knows very well it is
nothing of the kind. Nurse knows all about it, and glad
enough is she—so she said herself." The nurse had lived
with the family 11 or 12 years and was living with them
dill " She hates you—she is always finding some fault
with you to M. Wells, and Mrs. Wells believes her far
before she does you. She is a dreadful lying wretch is that
nurse. She will be found out listening at the doors before
long. She is jealous of you, that is the whole of it. She
does not like the children thinking so much of you. Don't
seek to stop after Christmas." The day before this was
written Mrs. Wells had a conversation with her, when it
was arranged she should leave at Christmas. " They will
only laugh at you when they see the last of you. She is
a nasty interfering creature, nurse ; she must nave a word
to say upon everything. Why I wrote these letters to you
was for you to give Mrs. Wells warning instead of her
*ending you away. Emma (the nurse) listened at the door
and knew all about it before." Afterwards Mrs. Wells
accidentally found some of Miss Cooper's undoubted hand-
writing, and, on being shown to Mr. Netherclift, the
expert, he pronounced it to be by the same hand as had
written the anonymous letters. Without communicating
her suspicions, Mrs. Wells told Miss Cooper that she
wished to see her father on the subject of the letters, on
which she seemed greatly distressed, and begged her not to
go to her home, alleging as a reason that her mother was a
vs ry passionate woman. She however gave Mrs. Wells her
father's address in the Borough. This was on the evening
of the 26th of November, between 5 and 6, and afterwards
Mrs. Wells went to town. About nine the same
evening, when Mrs. Wells returned, she was shown a
letter, addressed to herself, which had been found
in the letterbox attached to the gate of the