The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-12-16 00:00:00

WYATT V. COCCI ♦ND WITS.

Serrnsra ftltcited the pleadings.
Sergeant 11' it. DE etated the Calle 011 the part of the plaintiff. I
33 .!!s action brought against the defendants to recover cow- I
-•,.esanon damages for it retired to give • character to the plal.n.
onn lived with them in the slipway of female servant. The
p they would perceive, occupied an humble station in society I
ant dam in elite!' character was of the utmost importance, so that
test Was vi.l.nahle to her in life was staked to the present issue. i
fi:.M7.... was aware that the evidence which he should •
aictoe, would he received with the meat jealous mutton by the
woo themselves were masters, on account of the disparity in
t. :e rar.k of the parties. The defendants were in a very different
a viatica lions the plaintiff; they were persons of rank and °pile
I ace, residing at the west-end of the town. Mr. Cocks was •
b.Aer, who heat a house in Harley-street, the domestic arrange.
lemma of which, as was natural, he entnisted to the superintend.
ellee of his wife, en that she was the actual defendant in the present
ease. The plaintiff entered into her service about three years ago ;
e.:e conducted herself so mach to the satisfaction of her mistress in
this situation, that she was promoted to the grade of waitingmiaid
‘ti Mrs. Cods. This, at least, was a test of the approbation of her
n....trt.s. it alsobappened that one of the children became ill,
red tae plaintiff was entrusted with the care of the child, as the
Inn sr and meat eligible person for such • duty. However, the
iinditig the business of her situation so laborious, intimated
tee intentien of leaving the service of Mrs. Cocks. Mrs. Cocks
e anted her not to quit ; and told her, that if she did ao, she would
be obliged to go to the county., and would be reduced to poverty,
and probably to disgrace. Meanwhile, the plaintiff applied to
Mrs. C. Burnett, of haling Park, for a situation ; on this appll-
-3lrs. Burnet made Inquiry of and out of this
inquire, the present action arose. Mrs. B. that she was
is dressing hair, and other dot aining tosituation of
wa,timi.auald. She further described the plaintiffto be " unsteady."
Titis night be variously interpreted,it might mean a person going
Cos"! stairs fur two thing", and forgetting one of them. But the
J:at surely would not he disposed to put such a construction upon
in, hat rather form their opinion of it from the effect of' this repre-
sentation upon the subsequent conduct of Mrs. Burnett, 'icon-
s eyed in her answer to the plaintiff. She said. that if, after having
Lied for two years and a half in the capacity of aursery-maid and
naiting-maid to Alta. Cocks, she could not obtain • character
t: urea Ler. and was not Littnil for her situation, she would not be a fit
eersor to wait on her (Mrs. 11.'s) daughter ; accordingly she lost
tt.is situation. If she to an unfit person, let Mrs. Cocks this day
come fors ard and prove her assertion. This peon girl, in conic-
qi.mice of this refusal on the part of her mistress to give her a chs-
r-ner, was naturally reduced to great distress, until at length her
case at:meted the attention of a clergyman, and Mr. Jenkins, a m-
ane:table teacher of dancing. A letter from an attorney was af.
6trards addressed to the defendants giving notice of the present
actiuu. This lettet contained a remonstrance with the defendants,
sad rv,uired that a character should be given to the plaintiff. spe-
c.tverg the faults which they found in ha character. Mrs. Cocks
ositira meant to take her back into her service but repeated her de-
termination not to alter the course she had taken. These were the
he should adduce in evidence. It would be hard
inel.eti, it a servant, however corext may be her conduct, should be
Ihrlirrti in a sort of moral prison, by a threat that she should re-
ceive no character, if she presumed to leave her situation. He
era, ssnsfied the Jury would not sanction such a proposition, more
particularly when they considered what an all-Important eonse-
ip.inice character was to servants. He (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) had
,s •• acknowledgement. and one only to wake to the defendants; it
that they put this case into the hands of a Special Jury not
tat lie could elpcet a favourable bias to his client from siren in
c:, ii- st ',non in lite ; but, bccaus: as master., they were well aware
of iltu relative 'lutist of masters and servants, and that they would
..) it. it verdict impartially point out the conduct which masters
rna r it-tresses were bound to observe towards their servants, and
Ire ien their servants were entitled to expect.
'ire following witnesses s ere then called in support of the Learned
11;ii..iiser: statement :
Mrs. Burnett was the first witness called—Sbe was a lade of
feshienable appearance and elegant deportment. lam the wife of
Mr. Lanett. of Ealing Park; there was vacant in my family the
eitostion of lady's maid ; it was applied for by the plaintiff; eke
refereed tee fin a character to Mrs. Cocks, of Harley-street ; I saw
iLst lady, and inquired from her into the charactot of the plaintiff
as to honesty, sobriety, and general capability. Mrs. Cocks in.
fanned me that site was both sober and honest ; but that there was
a want of steadiness in her conduct; I also inquired if she was a
good dress-maker • Mrs. Cocks sad she knew very little of dee:va-
nishing ; she further said that the ti was originally a nursery-
maid in her service, and that site sus removed to the situation of
rnsitid on account of her unsteadiness ; my observation Oft this
IMANNMOR was, that as I hail young slaughters growing up, /
weld not take • servant of such a character ; Mrs. made no
further observation, but in ce:e'equence of what she told me, 1 rc.
l4sad to sake the plaintiff service.
C.T.ri.-ezainitirat—l did Liar Aro. Cocks say, that sheiplaced the
phientiff ahnitt her own 'KWh: WI account of her unsteadiness r ate
also said th-t the eliange was ads:sea by Sir W. Knighton, the
medical areaiinnt, et the !airily ; Mrs. Cocks also mentioned that
she had Iwo, ICtlit'Ved trelrl of nursery-maid, in con-
sequonce unsteadiness in t! 7 maragernert of children.
:dr. .1. J. examined.-1 aiie a emit-Mg-mister. I had on
one occasina a communication • Ith Mrs. Cocks, relative to the
it ocetared on the ef January. Mrs. Cocks wit• •
pupil ui min I chaired if I c gild be instrumental in bringing
tnn matter t.. on tut:midi! conelosiein I iolid to Mrs. Cocks--
•• )lid to., see to Holey Wyatt, ilia: slit' Wield be turned home to
I. r er telind h'ivel in the country, as you would take care that she
net it' h any oiler rotation in Lonthel ?" Mrs. Cocks re.
pried, that sivi did not i.e: ex ;I:elision a that extent, but that
moose hasty rerdir le:see:tin ,r a ve.c.rixt.: hovel bad escaped her.
tnet • • .iiirci, Mrs. ('trek' ot: do rut intend to deprive the
girl of a i.i,• 'lcon, by witlihubliti;! a chg.:acme from her." Airs.
I N,rl:l theii il..tatled a site the el:c.a.:it:owes of the case, and when
all cane: w rfedk of steadiness she stet, '• Now how can l give
lire a enure fur steadiness, when she left iny lioasc one morning
at live on 10i to po-.l knor• not ware It happi.ned that I was
very ill on t m.rning, cud by ringing the bell, to which she did
toot at.swer. 1 d;srevcred she was out." nirs. Cocks did not men-
tion to no how don;; this was before the plaint IC gave liar notice to
quit. Ei.iien Mrs. Cocks or the girl. I don't I,mm which, told me
that sl.e was u, the Ilegent's Park. /By observatien to Mrs. Cock*
upon thin transaction was, that if my seri aet of trine had toted
would have sent Hut or her out of the house immediately.
altr. C !:1 said also, that she hail not refaced to give the plaintiff
charatr.n, but after what had happened she Grad not give her

clisr.r.ry for steadirecs.
tkovi-csr.mine.l.—On my TCIIIM from Mrs. Cocks, I saw the
plaintiff: 1 told her what passed at the interview with Mrs.
Cucks, and said to her, •• how could you deceive Mrs. Jenkins,
by concealing from ha that you had been out at live o'clock in the
Imairning ? Is it true ?" She admitted that she was out at that
liner. and began to cry. I asked her then, if she would have any
AV `dial) to taste an apology to UM Cons. Site expensed lan

willingness to do so. I then mid, so you have
tainl
consulted hitherto
with Mt. Stevens (plaintif ma
f's attorney), and 3lr. Valentine, don't
go on my ts alone. She eft ass • deci
that oche woo do "so. do not know that Mr. Valentinewith wastion not
told by plaintiff that he wrote letters fur her. Mrs. Cocks told me
that he was n ckrgyman.
Re-examined.-1 was not told by thmplaintiff how lore before
she quitted the service of dies. Cocks, the circumstanca of her go-
ing out at five o'clock in the morning occurred. Nothing passed
between Mts. Cocks and rift respecting an apology, until I spoke
of it. On so, mentioning it, Mrs. (,o is consented to receive it. I
' said, I would go home, and indoce the plaintiff to make one. Mrs.
Cocks said, she did not want to deprive the girl other bread. Mrs.
Jenkins took an interest in the girl. I certainly tom very much
displeased with her for not having told toe the circonsamce of her
b out at five in the morning. Mrs. Cocks told me, that Sir
W. Knighton had recommended the change in the 'aviation of the
plaintiff; in her service, on account of her unsteadiness in the cam
of children, in omitting to give them regularly the medicine pre-
scribed for them by Sir William.
Mrs. E. Lees examined-1 Am the defendants' housekeeper.
After the plaintiff had given her warning, I bad no direct commu-
ideation with her at the request of my mistress. I told the plaintiff
that Alm. Cocks would sec her if she would go to her, but that
Mrs. Cocks did not desire her either to go or to stay. Anything
beyond this that I might have said to the plaintiff was from iny-
self ; Mrs. Costs had not authorised me to say anything to her.
Mrs. Cocks had only said, that if the girl made an apology, she
would Pee her, but had not desired me to repeat this to the girl. I
recollect the time when plaintiff went out in the morning; I think
that was 'near about a twelvemonth before she gave warning to
leave. She lived in the family MOT! than two years and a half;
she was at first nursery maid, and afterwards maid to Mrs. Cocks.
There were four children. About six months after plaintiff came
to the place one of the children was taken ill ; the plaintiff attended
the child. Mrs. Cocks was satisfied with her conduct, and I be-
lieve mode her a present.
(,'roes-examined—Sir Wm. Knighton used to attend the family.
I was not present at any time a complaint was made by Sir Wm.
Knighton against her. I was desired to deep in the room with the
chikl. The care of the child was not entrusted to the plaintiff
alone; I slept there during the night, and was often therein the day.
Re-examined—Mrs. Cocks lived in the same house in which the
child ass.
By the CI7IET JUSTICE—Whets I advised plaintiff to make an
apology, I knew of no specific charge against her. It must have
been something between her mistress and herself; it must have
been a twelvroonth after she had been in the Park.
Barnet Stagg.-1 am hatter to Mrs. Cocks. I remember when
the plaintiff quitted Mrs. Cocks' service. I had no conversation
with Mrs. Cocks on the subject, nor with the plaintiff at her desire.
I never hard her desire any body to say any thing to the plaintiff'.
I don't recollect bearing Mrs. Cocks say any thing to me about it.
I heard her say, but not to me, that the girl might stay in the house
if oche pleased. I saw a pelisse which plaintiff' told me her mistress
had given her for her kindness to her child.• It was& new ona, and
I never saw it in any other person's possession.
Crow-examined—l never heard that Sir Wm. Knighton had
complained of her.
Another witness, the nurse, was called to confirm the evidence
,out the giving of the pelisse to the plaintiff for ha attention to
the children.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff here closed.
Mr. Sergeant Vatenriax addressed the Jury on the part of the
defendants. The Jury had now come to the conclusion of the evi-
dence which was to be adduced to support the charge of malice
against Mrs. Cocks. After such a detail of evidence, he hardly
thought that he would have been called upon to address them. fie
would ask them, "On what part of the evidence they had heard
could they find foundation for the charge of malice against the de-
fendant ?" The present case was different from others of a similar
nature, inasmuch it would not be sufficient here to prove the false-
hood ; it would be moreover netwassry to prove ninlice in the mind
of the accused party. In the case •• Rogers r. Sir O. Clifton." the
defendant went so far as to tell the person with whom the plaintiff
had formerly lived in the capacity of butler, and from whom he had
obtained a good character, that he should not in future give him
a good character, as he was a lay, ill-tempered, and impertinent
fellow. Ile wrote to the same effect respecting him to a gentleman
who was about to engage hint ; and, further, that he was obliged
to put him out of the house by means of a police-officer, and after-
wards to settle his wages by the interposition of an attorney. Vet
this was held to be a privileged communication.
The Ciller Jeer icr—The law upon the case is quite clear;
and it only remains for you, Brother, to show its application to the
present case.
Mr. Sergeant VAUCHAre resumed.—There were no facts in err
donee which showed a malicious intention on the part of the de-
fendant. The girl hail indeed been out one morning at five
o'clock. This was of itself a very suspicious circumstance. She
herself wished to have an inuendo conveyed to the Jury upon this
part of the mu, which Mrs. Cocks never haul intimated. She
deemed it necessary to say that she had never been accused of int.
proper conduct, or of light behaviour towards the male sex. Now
Mrs. Cocks had never made such an accusation ; it was a construc-
tion of her own adoption ; and all that 3lnt. Cocks did was, as any
person would do under similar circumstances, refuse to give
her a character for steadiness. Upon the other parts of her
character Mrs. Cocks was equally candid in her interview with
Mrs. Burnett. She said she was honest, and that she was sober,
but she could not give her a character for steadiness, and she stated
why she could not. It could not be denied that the departure from
Mrs. Cocks' house, to go to the Park, was at least a most sus.
pawn siteumstance. It was not explained to day ; bit did the
Jury suppose if a favourable explanation could be given of it that
it would this day be withheld from them. Her removal to be wait-
ing-mald to Mrs. Cocks was, however, explained on account of
her inattention to the children, and the opinion of Si William
Knighton of her unfitness to take prooer care cf them. There was
not in proof any intention of a wish on the part a Mrs. Cocks to
prevent the plaintiff from procuring a situation in London or else-
where ; she gave her a good character as far as she possessed qua-
lifications to sustain and to warrant, and only ',relined to recom-
mend her for qualifications in which she was deficient. Ile was
satisfied, therefore, that the Jury would find a verdict for his
client, olden thew were prepared to say, that the master or mistress
should not in future give a candid opinion of any servant, if that
opinion were not an entirely favourable one.
No witnesses were called on the part of the defence.
The Caner JVSTICE, in summing up, told the Jury that the
leading consideration for them was, how far the representation
maths by Mrs. Cocks to Mrs. Burnett was a malicious one. The
extent of that communication was, that she was unsteadT, and the
principal fact on which that imputation was grounded, was, that
the plaintiff had gone out one morning at five o'clock. 'flint cer-
tainly was a circumstance of a very suspicious nature, but it ad-
mitted of explanation. No explanation was offered that day for her
departure from home at that early hour. and if in the absence of
any satitictory explanation of it. her mistress had discharged her
that very day she would be justified in doing so; but the plaintiff
was entitled to a character as she omitted to do so. and permitted
her to remain in her eniploymcttt a twelvemonth after that trans.
action. It might be sopranod that she was permitted to remain
from a humane motive. that frequently actuates masters and mis-
tresses ; namely, that lice conduct might be amended, or until she
might have an opportunity of leaving without injury to her cha-
racter ; but a barrier was put to that supposition, by the circum-
stance of the plaintiff being the person who gave the warning to
quit, which nothing, it was to be presumed, would come from the
mistress, if any fault were to be found with her, or any charge
preferred against her. The question of malice was one certainly
for the consideration of the Jury ; if there were no malice in their
opinion, then they should find for the defendants ; but if they were
of opinion that there was malice, and that the plaintiff had sof-
! feint in character from misrepresentation, then they would find for
the plaintiff in modetate damage:. and place her in the saute situa-
tion in which she was before she left the service of the defendants.
The Jury retired fur about two hours, agd returned a verdict for
the plainuff.—llaniages 1501.

A small coin of the reign of the Emperor Gratian, was
lately dug up in Jessop's Somerset House Nursery Garden,
Cheitenhatn. On one side is a head of the Emperor, and
on the edge arc characters now scarcely discernible; on the
obverse side is a Roman Galley, surmounted by the word
"

.......
The Marquis of Exeter has had the misfortune to lose
two valuable racers ; Ghost, by Captain Candid, out
of Phantom, three years old, and a promising two-year old
tally, by Ardrossan, out of Pandas, both of whom died
last week at Newmarket.

The Limerick Chronic.le, after mentioning the commit-
tal to gaol of several persons charged with having com-
mitted tile late horrible murder at !boa, says—" It has
heels since ascertained that there were at least ten armed
men in the house on the fatal night, besides those observed
outside, two of whom kept watch at a window and pre-
vented the escape of the inmates. One of those committed.
Timothy Ryan, has been identified by Michael Connell,
as the person who broke his arm with the scythe. Th.:
l)wycrs were the tenants who previously occupied the farm,
situate upon part of the propertof the Earl of Strad-
brook, and who were ejected last March for non-payment
of nearly three years' rent. Honors Connell, sister to the
deceased Daniel Connell, was on Thursday brought in on a
car to the *minty infirmary, where she continues under
surgical care."
On Thursday last an inquest was held at Aldeburgh,
by Charles Bringloe, Gent. Coroner, on the hotly of a
new-born female bastard child. 'flie Jury brought in a
verdict of Wilful Murder" against Sarah James, the
mother.

A landholder, not far off, lately got a new grieve, or
land-steward. On the morning of the teeing day, the
grieve waited on his new master: " Wee!, Sir, (said he)
fu mo4y new servants will I need to engage the day ?"
" Servants !" said the laird, " are there any of my ser-
vants leaving vne ?" " I was thinkin, Sir—l was thinkin
that Willie Wood wasna just sac able for the wark as he
has been." " Willie Wood, man !" rejoined the laird—
" Willie Wood has a better right to the estate than I
have ; he was here in my grandfather's titac.".—Dunder
Courier.