The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-18 00:00:00

THE. BRITISH PRESS.

places ? Why, the answer was perfectly obvious. It was said that
the plaintiff was a distinguished man, that he had filled city offices,
that he was an Alderman; but, making every allowance for even
the most Boeotian dullness, no man could be so blind as not to
see that in pursuing such a mode of conduct, he was throwing his
wife into the very jaws of danger. Here was the defendant, who
had exhibited the passions on the stage to a degree of great perfec-
tion ; here was a man with address and manner to captivate and Cu.
chain a woman of much cooler temperament than Mrs. Cox ; here
was a moo to whom she at all nines seemed devoted, and yet did
the plaintiff lead her to his dressing.roorn! Could any man shin
his eyes to the consequences of such familiarity ? But, tin the other
hand, suppose that he (Mr. Scarlett) should fail in establishing col.
tuition, and that a verdict must pass for the plaintiff; was it, he
asked, a case for two thousand pounds damages? No, no. He
trusted to their moderation, for be thought the question would be,
whether the verdict should be for twopence or two shillings. The
other side have left the evidence which they could give incomplete,
and he was therefore bound to supply ii, however reloctant the
Parties might be to come forward. Before he sat down, he begged
leave to say, that 3lrs. Cox might have deceived her husband, but,
after repered detections, he could not set up a claim to large da-
, ntsges. Mr. Kean dent at the house of Slr. Cox ;he entered it at
every hour of the night, and in every condition; what was all that
but an invitation to him ? Why, even the very night before he
' went to America. he slept at 31r.Cox's, though having eo large and
respectable a house of his own in town. Under each carcunittancee,
he was fully.satistied the Jury would agree with him, that it would
have been wiser, more honourable, and more discreet, if the plain-
tiff had avoided an inquiry like the present.
James Newman examined by Mr. Ilnonortaat.—l am Mr.
Kean'', dresser at the theatre. I have seen Alderman and
Mrs. Cox there repeatedly. It is furnished in the usual way, with
a sofa, chairs, &c. I have seen them there while 31r. Kean was
dressing. I have seen tine for the last five or six years, before Mr.
Kean went to America. I have seen him with a pair of silks
on during their presence, which fitted him as tight as his akin.
Sometimes lie has had a flannel waistcoat on when they were there.
They were several times in the dressing-room while 31y. Keen was
droning. Mrs. Cox has sometimes conic alone, and sometimes'
with Miss Wickstead. I never saw a servant with them. I have
seen Mr. Kean take off his own clothes and pat on his theatricals in
their presence. lie has been undressed to his &linnet waistcoat.
These silks are intended to represent the natural flesh. Sonietimcs
Mr. Kean told me not to admit 3lrs. Cox, and I have prevented
her on different occasions. I have seen the Alderman and Mrs.
Cox in hlr. Kean's box. They mostly used it when they came to
the theatre. Mrs. Cox was almost every night there. Aftet the
play flint. Cox has been with Mr. Kean in his room, and the Alder.
man with her. I have seen 31rs. Kean in Mr. Kean's box, and nn
those occasions 31r. Kean had another box for them. I recollect
their going to Croydim in the night, about one o'clock. Ales. ('ox
I saw there the day after, the Alderman having returned to town.
I took money to Mr. Kean. He played that night at Croydon.
Mrs. Cox was at the play, near the stage box.
Cross-examined. I belong to 'hi', theatre, and was appointed
Mr. Kean's dresser about the year 11116. The Alderman was one
of the Committee at the theatre, but I do not know if he were the
most active individual, nor if he had a private box. I have seen
many gentlemen visit Mr. Kean in his dressing room, but not mang
ladies. I have been several times at the residence of Mr. Cox. but
I do not recollect any particular occasion, nor that I was in a bed-
room.
lie-examined—l do not &sink Mr. Cox had a private box when
be used to visit Mr. Kean.
John Steward, examined by Mr. PLATT—Do you recollect
taking a letter with money to 31iss11'ickstead
!liken was that ?—I cannot say precisely.
Do you know the amount of the money P—Certainly not ; I
know nothing about that. In 1822 I was a private box-keeper at
Drury-lane Theatre, and down to 11e24 I attended the box No. 4,
which was kept for the friends of Mr. Kean. I have seen Alder-
man and Mrs. Cox there repeatedly. Once or twice Mrs. Cox
came there alone. The Aldmnan came once alone, and I asked
him if any one else were coming, when he said yes, that Mrs. Cox
would come, as she was then with Mr. Kean. She afterwards
came by a passage under the stage. This was one of the nights
when Mr. Kean and Mr. Young played together.
Miss Anne IVickstead was called by Mr. SCAILITT, and after
a delay of some minutes, she appeared.
Examined by Mr. SCARLETT.—I am the niece of Mr. Alder-
man Cox, and have lived with him for some time. lam now 211
years of age. I remember a journey which we all took some years
ago, and also Mrs. Cox fainting at the theatre. Mr. Kean played
that night : that may be ten years ago. We were in the stage-
box. Mrs. Cox was taken out, and conveyed to Mr. Bean's
dressing-room. As soon as she recovered she went home. lily
uncle citVed upon him next day to thank him; he also invited him ;
before that time there was no arquaintanre between them ; after
that, however, they became intimate, and the families visited for
about three years after. I don't know the cause of its discon-
tinuance. I don't recollect that Mrs. Kean said she would discon-
tinue her visits to us. My uncle after that did not visit 3lrs.
Kean, nor Mrs. Kean at my uncle's. 111 y aunt began to frequent
the play-house when she lived in Little Britain. Wevery often
went to air. dean's box, and also to his dressing-room. My uncle
only went once alone. After we went to Wellington place, we
used .Mr. Kean's box. Mrs. Kean chi not then visit at our house.
I never remember to have received a letter from Mr. Kean, con-
taining money ; nor if I did, that it was for the use of my aunt.
When Mr. Kean was going to America, I believe he paid Mrs.
Cox's expenses fur her journey to see him off. We went before
that to Hampton Conrt, where we stopped some time. Ire went
to Birmingham about two years ago, to join Mr. Kean. lily uncle
was with us; we were absent fora fortnight. I knew that my
cousin went in search of us, though I did not see him. Sly uncle
asked no questions about the journey. 1 remember our going to
Salisbury about two years ago. We went to Windsor before that,
and stopped there some days. Mr. Kean joined us there. My
uncle and aunt travelled in Mr. Kean's carriage. 11" e re-
mained at Salisbury for a fortnight. Mr. Kean paid the
expenses. The attentions of Mr. Kean to my aunt were
very remarkable both In and out of doors. Mr. Kean
has come very late at night to supper, when my aunt was in bed ;
I recollect nn occasion on which she got up to see him. I was then
in bed myself. Mr. Kean lien come to our house at all hours—
sometimes at three or four o'clock in the morning, and he was al-
ways admitted. On these occasions he slept on the sofa. 31y uncle
after bteakfast, went out to business and returned in the evening.
Mr. Kean remained in the interval. We went to Croydon in the
niontli of January, 1013, but I cannot say whether it was before or
after we had been at Salisbury. Sly uncle and Kean often eat up
late together at supper. We reached Croydon by day-light in the
morning. Kean played that night, and my aunt and myself went
to the theatre. 11'e passed that night at Croydon. I remember
the day appointed for Mr. Kean's going to America, but I cannot
say if he slept at our house on the night before. I know Mr.
Kempts ; he was introduced to us by a cousin of Mrs. Cox. At
one period my uncle desired he should discontinue his visits. This
is some dozen years ago. Mrs. Cox told me something about a ser-
vant and that gentleman, and after that time he did rot visit us
again. I remember that my uncle was out till six o'clock in the
morning; a quarrel with my aunt was the result. I know that
letters passed between 31r. Kempts and my aunt.
From your own observations I ask you it, at the time we are
speaking of, your uncle did not see what was going forward and
express his displeasure at it ?---My aunt told me she took her oath
that nothing improper had occurred with Mr. Kempts.
Do you know where Mrs. ('ox now lives ?—I don't know.
When did she leave yout uocle'a house ?—ln April—l believe
the second week she went to Dover ; she came back, and then
went to Norfolk. I know a Mr. Pearson, and my uncle never
objected to his visits, neither did he ever object to the visits
of Mr. Kean. I have seen Miss Tillswell in Mr. Kean's dress-
ing-room.
Is she not an old lady, his aunt ?—Yes.
Have you made other visits to Croydon ?—Yes, often. My
uncle has left Wellington-street, and we now live near the Park, in
Hart-street, Bloomsbury-square. I have heard my uncle say he
would make 31rs. Cox an increased allowance if she would give up
the aCqUaialallee of a Mr. Watman.
Cross-examined by Ale. Connor; SERGEAYT-31r. Watman
visited our house, on the ground of paying his addresses to
me. I remember my uncle's marriage, and 1 never saw a more
affectionate couple. I gave no hint to my uncle, because I
thought he was so very fond of Mrs. Cex. I don't think
he had the least suspicion of what was going forward with Mr.
Kean.
Re-examined—lf your uncle saw a man in her room, could
she make him believe it meant nothing?—l don't know.
'u your aunt very artful ?—lt appears now that she was.
James Parker examined by Mr. iIItOUGIIAII-1 have Bred as
servant with Mr. Cox for eleven years. I do not rectollect.having
any disturbance about a lap-tlog.
Cross-examined—During all the time I lived with Mr. Cox
he and his wife lived very happily, as far as I could see. Upon
making the discovery of the letters my master went away, and I
went with hint. My master said that he could scarcely believe
such a thing. lam sure he knew nothing at all about It.
Re-examined—l knew Air. Watman. I brought letters to him
from Mrs. Cox. I told my master, and I got one letter for hint.
After this my mistress remained in .the house, and master went
awe', and remained away till Mrs. Cox left the house. There
was nothing about Mr. Kean before that letter.
Daniel Ilendley, a door-keeper at Drury-lane, hat often seen
Mr. and Mrs. Cox. Ile saw them walk together in the month of
June last. I gave her the wall in passing. This was between '
11 and 12 o'clock in the day.
Crceut-examined—l live in Ilungerford-market. I saw Mr. and
Mrs. ('ox walk together in the open day, before all the world--any
one could have seen them. 1 cannot tell her complexion, as
she hail a veil on. 1 have often seen her at the Theatre.

James Parker (a man of colour) was recalled, to state the size
of Mrs. Cox ; and he said she was a good size, about as tall as him-
self—(Laughter throughout the Court.)
Mr. Common SERGEANT, in reply, first begged leave to ob-
serve, that no man living could believe the story hist told by the
box-keeper, nor was any thing offered in evidence to weaken the
care he had stated to the Jury. From the first to the last, the con.
duct of Mr. Cox was what that of any man of honour would be.
The discovery of Mr.Watinan's affair threw light upon the whole
subject, and the inquiry led to the painful disclosures of this day.
Mr. Cox had acted the part of a humane man as well as a man of
sense. Upon finding his dishonour, lie left his house; his wife re-
, moaned there tOr a week, and then was settled in Nortolk-street,
where she now resided. A great deal was said about collusion, but
where was It proved ? Ile undertook to say, no where. Mr. Cox
was not altogether blameless, for. if he bad been active and diligent,
this injury might not have taken place. The letters from Exeter
were evidently the production of the defendant, howerer addressed.
This heroic lover, this sentimental actor, had, forsooth, been deli-
ere, and he had not shown her letters. And why, because, he wlshril

the inference to be the stronger against her. No letters, in feet, &add
be as bail as the calling evidence out of the bosom of the plaintiff's
family. Mr. Cox here threw down the gauntlet—he challenged in-
quiry—and he was met by testimony front his own relations, This
was the manly delicacy, as Mr. Scsrlett called it, of Mr. Kean. Mrs.
Cox was an artful woman, and no doubt succeeded in practising no
the feeling and good nature of her husband. Kean's letter to Mr.
Cox might be considered a denial of guilt; but Mr. Kean was the
last man who should have held out a 'friendly hand while be was
undermining tbc peace, the happiness, and conjugal felicity, of the
plaintiff and his wife. In fact, this letter, denying his guilt, and
declining the friendship of the too-confiding husband, was only
written alth a view again to share the bed of Mts. Cox. Too go-
limns, indeed, to produce her letters! Yes, but at the same time
111 r. Kean was attempting by every means to blacken her character,
and add a deeper dishonour to the plaintiff. The Jury had heard of
the affair of the closet and Sir R. Kenunia ; now he (Mr. Denman)
would be very glad to know who gave the attorney for .Mr.
Kean that fact ? To be sure, Mrs. Cox. She knows the
story of the dug and the maid servant. Mrs. Cox, no doubt,
gave all the information, which it was impossible to obtain front
any other quarter. Upon that occasion 31n. Cox swore to her hus-
band, that she was guiltless, though suspected, and he again took
her to his arms. The moment the slightest suspicion was excited,
the plaintiff spoke to his wile, and her visits in the suspected
quarter were instantly diacontinued ; and exactly so would it have
been in this case, if the plaintiff knew what was going forward.
l'ery often, however, as the Jury mina know. the power of the
wile was greatest when she was disabusing her husband of his
suspicion as to tier fidelity. then the protestations of the wife
were backed up by the defendant's letter of the Gth Jauusry, it was
impossible for hint tint to be again reconciled to her. The Jury
were next told the story of Newman, the dresser of Mr. Kean ;
and certainly he (Mr. Denman) must admit the imprudence of the
plaintiff' in taking his wife to such a place, or, indeed, in allowing her
so often to frequent the theatre ; but nevertheless was Mr. Kean
to have a licence to make free with every man's wife who
who went to see hint at the theatre? Certainly he should not,
distinguished as he was by a genius, which, well directed, would
make bin) an ornament of his profession even in the present age.
Upon comparing the dates of the letters, the correspondence would
be found to have existed, at all events, since 1020; anat.,,for at least
lie years Mr. Kean had had the full possession of the mind as well
as the person of Mrs. Cost for as to Mr. Watman, he had only fol-
lowed the breach which Mr. .Kean had made. Why then should
that young man have been selected for punishment ? lie had
found her mind and habits already vitiated, and it could not be the
least poignant aggravation of Mr. Konn's conduct, that while so
seducing her he must know it would end in his throwing her upon
the world. He, as a married man, should hare telt for that—he
should have considered that be found these persons happy, anti that
he left them ruined. This player should have no peculiar privi-
lege, because he was so touch before the world, or because his ge-
nius had obtained hint so many admirers. In fart, there were rea-
sons why he should have been Inure cautious. Me should have
thought of the conduct of those great and irreproachable men, who
sited a lustre on the ptofession, and the age in which they heel.
He should have imitated a Garrick and a l(emble, who never be.
trayed thecontidence reposed in them ; or of some of those living
ornaments of the stage, who were incapable of having that Lt.
puled to them, which he was grieved to impute to Mr. Kean.
He ( 31r. Denman) greatly admired the talents of Mr. Kean,
and fie revealed, that he looked with the most sincere grief a:
what were likely to be the results of this day. 31r. Kean, however,
had chosen for himself, and unwisely, as well as inhumanly,l
chosen to expose his own family, and that of others, to harrowing
misery and sufferingby his iniscomltict. The plaintiff did not ask
for damages in his situation as a magistrate, but for his suffering
as an individual. His happiness was broken, and that of his un-
happy wife lost for ever. For such injuries he expected damages.
Miss 1V ickstead, and the servants, proved the state of happiness in
which they had lived, before Mr. Kean had visited at their house,
and lie (31r. Denman) called upon the Jury to discharge their duty,
and hold out an example to the country by so doing. With
respect to the money alluded to, the fact was that Mr. Kean
paid the travelling expenses of Mrs. Cox when she went to visit
him. No wrong inference should be drawn from that, and it would
be worse than idle to infer any thing like collusion [eons the fact of
borrowing and immediately repaving a few pounds. There was no
proof of any warning having heti] given by Mrs. Kean, beyond the
mere gossip amongst the acrvants. 11'illi respect egaiti to the
ignorance of the plaintiff, as to the dishonour which was almost
daily practising upon him, there was the letter of defendant
self, titan which nothing could be stronger. That there was great
negligence on the part of the plaintiff,. he ( Mr. Denman) would not
deny ; but not Ruth negligence as to justify the slightest inference
of any collusion. The plaintiff did not seek for money. but to
vindicate hia character; lie did not call for large damages, but for
such an award as was due to friendship violated—to abused con-
fidence, and the total loss of an object of long and fund affection.
The LORD CIIIET JUSTICE recapitulated the leading points
of the evidence to the Jury, and left it to them to say, if a criminal
intercourse had been proved ; for if it had, and no blame was im-
putable to the plaintiff; then lie was entitled to their verdict. They
would next have to consider what had been proved in the defence,
and ascertain if the proof of carelessness amounted to what was '
stated as connivance. If there were connivarce on the part of the'
plaintiff, he could not be entitled to a verdict, for, if a man look
quietly on at his own dlahorour, he cannot come into a Court of
Justice and look for a reparation in damages. Besides the charge
of connivance, it was urged for the defence, that the negligence of
the plaintiff was gross in the extreme, even nf:er he had had quite
enough to excite the surprise of any reasonable awn. Negligence
was rot denied on the part of the plaintiff; but it was insisted that
it was not a guilty negligence, and of that, as going to reduce the
damages, the Jury were the best judges. Another point was raised
fur the defence, namely,• that the plaintiff was seen walking with
his wife in the month of June last, and that was also offered with a
view to reduce the damages. But it appeared to bitn that the wit-
rni might have been mistuken ; fir certainly the letter of the de.
fcndant, dated the Gth January, taken tog:alter with the whcle of
the conduct of the plaintiff; negative any such conduct on his part.
However, the Jury had heard the evidence on both sides; they
had also heard the statement of Counsel; and if they believed there
was no connivance on the part of the plaintiff, and that a criminal
intercourse were established, the plaintiff would be entitled to their
serdict ; and they would, no doubt, award such moderate damages
as would satisfy the justice of the case.
The Jury consulted for about twenty minutes, and returned with
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages EIGHT HUNHEED Pottarns.
The Court did not rise until half-past six o'clock in the evening

SHERIFFS' COURT, RED Liox-surAiz, AIOXDAT.
SMYTH v. DEET._

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant,
an attorney of the Court of King's liench, to recover the price of a
suit of livery, furnished to his servant. The defendant had allowed
judgment to go by default, and a writ issued to the Sheriff to assess
damages.
Abraham Smith, son to the plaintiff, proved the servant's having
ordered and received the livery, and that clothes had before that
been furnished to him on his own order, which were subsequently
paid for by his muter. For the present suit, however, he would
not pay, and when witness applied to him for that purpose, he
said that he could not then discharge the amount, as he had loot
the bill which was sent to him, and that besides, he was " As poor
as a rat." Witness believed the clothes in question were worth
Ids. GI and a verdict was accordingly returned for that suns.

TROUT V. LAING.
In this case, the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant, a
pot-maker, residing at Kennington, the price of sixty casks of
cement.
Robert Lovelidage, foreman to the plaintiff, proved the defend-
ant's admission of the debt. The cement was valued at 16s. 3d.
per cask ; there was a further charge for cartage; after r. deduction
was made for casks returned, there remained due • balance of 38t.
15s. and for that sum the Jury found their verdict.