The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-04-05 00:00:00

there in that time. Never wrote Mr. Cooler i note of apology fur
baring neglected to be at Sir C. Welattley's to dine with him and
lir. Cooke.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cooke..—l never told you the Lord afar:
cellar told me that I most reverse the attainder before I could Le
heir to the Barony of Stafford. Lady Anastasia Howard died in
Paris in 1807. no not know that the litathrd eatate is crown land
I will swear this property is mine.
Mr. CooEe—Then I will proven" the contrary.
Ilia Loattfintr—l shall not allow you to do so before me, 1
assure you ; and therefore you need not attempt it.
Currie-1 hare s^.irched the Jounials of the House of
Lords during the year 1813, and cannot And that in that year any
agent was appointed to Ifiebard Stafford Choke, Moron Stafford.
Cross-examined by Ale Cooke—l found in the Journals that you
appeared for your brother.
His LOthEtlll I e—Tbat is not an appointment.
3lr. Cooker-No, but it is a revagnoton, my Lori.
His 1 oafiaittr— Indeed it is nor.
•

Th s was the ease thr the prumeution.
Mr. James Cooke rose in his defence.—After reading a long r
nealogy of the fi,afrord family. he proceeded to state to the Jury,
that uhen he should hare finished his catmint froth the attainder

of Earl Stafford, be should have proved; geortalo,^y of upwards of
800 years.

His 14.**suir—Which hes nothing it an to do *ith the ques-
tion.

Mrs Cooke sidled to show that he had been acenk legal* ender
an Act of Parliament. He proceeded in his own course for some
time, and then contended, that he had actial as the tenant of kis
brother. and that all others were acting under him.
Mr. CAN rut Lt. suggested the propriety of Mr. Cooke finish-
ing his evidence before he addressed the Court. Lord Chief
Justice Abbott had allowed a similar prOctedare * the last
Assizes.

Mr. Taunton not otecctirit,
Mr. Cooke called

Edward Smith, who objected to giving his eidence, as his erre
penes from Bath had not been paid him.
Ilia hissurautp, after consulting Mr. Baron harrow, dtclo.ol
that the witness mitt give his evidence.
IVitnwis--.1 WWI clerk to Mr. O. Waits, en attereney at Bath, in
1021; thin paper handed to nic is not a perfect power of attorney :
the back sheet i 4 torn ca; I believe it ta the instrument to which

I was an attesting witness.
His LORDSHIP tetad not take the liittooltolt oft &falba
on the record as evidence ; besides, it vita a cancelled document.
Richard 'dtafford Cooke them the back of the Court)—l tote it off,
my Lord.
Ilia LORDSIIIr.7 M'ho is this
. . _

Mr. Cooke—Lord Stafford ; and I call him as a ditnelk
His LOODSITI r—Oh ! the defendant on the record, I suppose ,4
of counie he cannot appear as a witness.
Sampson Tellers. examined by 31r. C,ocike.—l was piesent.
when Richard Cooke tore off and borne the bade 0!a power of at-
theory, which he had granted to James evoke, his brother ; it
WU at. m house; I do not know when it took place; it was 00114
time in Slay. You left Stafford a few days titer the power wad
torn.

George Wqrta, examined by :qr. Cooke.-1 yun a golicltor at
Bath. this instrument was prepared in trtY office; your breaker
executed it.
(It was then put in and read.) It was a poirer of mtnrney et
Richard Stafford Cooke, as thO lawful proprietor of the barony of
Stafford, authorising James Stamp Sutton Cooke to ant as his true
and lawful agent, in whatever act or deed he shall deem necessary
to aid and assist in the recovery of the said estate attached w the
barony of Stafford.
Examination resumed.—The document wn duel in Octeher,
1821.

—W. H. Cratfk, examined by 31r. Cl(o94.—The paper handed to
me is in my hana-wrilfng ; it is a copy of the powa of attorney:
made by me when it was redact.
The conclusion to the poser was then read, and made at cat=
plete document as far as evidence goes.
The Duke of Norfolk was Coen called.
Mr. CA M PIE L L said it has been intimatethohlm that hie Omit
would not attend.

The subpoena was then rut in, and etc Duke was called b'n kif
recognizance.
V. Ho} ph examined by Mr. Cooke—T am iteitatd of the
manor of Thoroberry ; I have the otrrt•rolls With me, bat I ab-
ject to producing them.
His Lordship Called upon defendant to rho* why they should hi
produced.
Mr. Cooke—To thew that my brother is the rightful heir to thi
Stafford estate.

His Lordship refused to enter into the question of right.
property was in the bands of a third party, who mold nut be com-
pelled to produce them.
Henry ‘Velahman--I know Sir Geogre inning/11am.; he told mi
he wished to buy you over ; it was in Roltori-row, Piocadaly, in
July last ; 1 am a draper; I want to Sir George; I introdiked the
subject of the claims to the Stafford barony, and suggested chelmi-
promise ; I thought it was better fot all theyarties; l it
wished me to call upon his solicitor the text morning; I i Bit
George I thought he had some attaint upon bits--(A genetal
ensued in the court.)
Witness—l presume I May enjoj my own opinion.
His Lordship--I think if Sir George had treated yMtzuntinardf
he would have had but little attaint upon him farmisdoing.
Sir George said he knew he laboured under an attaint, but Otat
he was petitioning Parliament for a reversal ; I .said shoiagM
compromise might be effected ; Sir George asked, if I thotiOt.
James Cooke could be depended upon I told him I did t hriaid
could he if something were given him : I afterwards went lb hit,
solicitor ; 1 was referred there by Sir George; I wit Canis,
there.

31r. Tarssox objected.
His Lordship observed, that what pascal certainly leas tot Cr:,
dence.

CIOIIIS.CIIITirIed by Mr. TAUIPTON.-4 was formerly a Jilin.
draper in bong Acre, and now reside with sr linen-draper fit Bristol:
I carry on the business fee my brother; 1 was at Stafford for al
fortnight at the beginning of January last year to assist Mr. COOkit ;
I was only a spectator.
111 r. TAUNT ow—To grace the sent, as an ;filament, suppolow
Witness—l sometimes gave him advice ; I was sent for by
letter ; I lived with Mr. Cooke r. I considered be was not u`fla~
correctly ; I was present on one of the rent days.
Re.ex.mined by Mr. Cooke.—l went with yon to Sir Choir,
%Volseley's, and dined and slept there.
By his Lordship—Mr. Richard Cooke was not them erlsaist
I was.

Mr. Cooke railed upon some gentlemen at the bar to prove the'
signature of Mr. Hammon, to an opinion he held in his hands:
His Lordship.-1 have nothing to do with it.
A pause ensued.
Mr. T AUNT UN —I do not know the signature, or *ma adage
the document, although I do not think it would be evidence ; on"
tainly not, unless the case itself be appet.ded.
His Lordship--Certainly it is not et klence.
Edward Lemon.-1 am Deputy Keeper of his Majesty's Skid
Papers ; I have brought down some papers by
.desire of Mr. Secre-
tary Peel ; I have brought down several pentenr.s tat the House a
horde on the question as to the vaality of Sir George Jerningbatres
claim to the Barony of staffo:d.
(The petition of Sir G.. 1. was then read, praying the ecti
of the attainder upon Lord Viscount Stafford. his ancestor.
appeared to have been referred to his Majesty's Attorney.Generak
oti the 19th of June, 1821.

Mr. Cooke suggested the reading of the petition of Hieaid
Cooke, in answer to the one just read.
Mr. TAUNTON objected.
Hi. Lonusuty decided that it could not be received in evidenee.
A similar fate awaited the petitions of the Duke of Norfolk, and
the I.:arls of Suirdlk and Caaisle, praying for the reversal of OW
att;irder.
The Ist Edward Vl. was then put in, and part read. ft went W
the reversal of the attainder, with exceptions.
His Loa um' r interrupted the reading, by stating that it tad*
not be evidence in this case.

Mr. CAMPBELL for dlr. Jenkinson„ trusted that the Jury would
return a verdict in favour of both the defendants, and beNvethet
Mr. Cooke, who had just concluded his cue, had acted, although
erroneously, yet not with wilful and corrupt motives, but epee as
honest principle, and the ern, belief of right to the property he
sought to recover, although improperly, because by means of a
violent nature. The awes of the two defendants were, however.
very different ; against his client no overt act was set out la the
record, and the evidence had fully proved that he acted as the again
and servant of the other defendant. The charge was one earl'
gravest nature ; the punishment wet ignominious, and that
ig-
nnminy would brand the convicted conspirator for the rest of his
life. The conviction of his client with the Cooke., hail brought
ruin upon his client and his family ; but he did not think the Jury
would pursue him by their verdict. Most undoubtedly the fine of
Sir George Jerningtiam was attained through the Duke of Ruch-
ingliani, and as certainly, and beyond all question, Richard Suttee
Cooke was the lineal descendant of the untainted line. That hew.
ever was not the question for the present dec:sion of the Jary. Tw
return to his client, he was shown Acts of Parßounent, Clurts of
Peerages—and every argument was urged to prove to hini the right
of the Cookes to the Milford Barney. Here (Raid the Learned Caws-'
sel), is a genealogical tree, tracing the ancestry of Mr. Cooke sad
Sir George Jerningbani much further tack than any Welsh ge-
nealogical ere- he had ever seen.

Ili; Loausuir—Du. it begin •ith Adam or Noah, air
Campbell ? . _

CAI 4 E L.—No, Adam is in about the middle, my Loyd.
The lord Conned proceeded in a moat ingenious mannerly rune
that this client cofld not 'have been concerned in the conspiracy, it
any such had existed, because he was not introduced to Cooke.
until long after the power of attorney had been obtained, and thy
principal blow struck. lle referred to the case of Ilayanß a.
Creasy, in *Web the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of mono
front the defendant, for falsely representing that a Mir Robinada
was worthy of credit. Mist Robinson turned out to be ea im-
postor, and the Jury found a verdict for the defendant ON the
belief that he had been himself deceived by the representations a
the party, who, through his representations, hid been misted to •
certain amount by the plaintiff* who was a tradesman. • /Hs dirt
was similarly situated, and if a civil action could not be supported
under such circumstances, much less could a criminal procreate,
The Learned Counsel then referred to the written appointment of
James Cooke, under which his client had acted. fie was sot ilier
only one who bad believed the story of the Cooker; many of Sir CL.
Jerningham's tenants had paid large sums of monereet at
As to his having it written on his floor, " Office of Lord
he could not see any offence in it. tie had advised the tenants inlay
their rentsto Mr. Cooke, and believing, as he did, that this sls
the Cokes was road, his conduct was that *fan honest max A.
to his baying joined in the procession, if that was an oiressesae
might be preferred against almost all the inhabitants of
who hailed the arrival of Richard Baron Staffed. His elliet.77a
been guilty of etteaditig a Court Lees ; obi% In, we. a goof of