The National Register.
London, England, 1811-06-09 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3.

THE KING V. COOK.
In this case the defendant is one of the subordinate offieerS
belonging to the Public Office, Hatton-Garden; the prosecutor
is a taylor, and on the day stated in the indictment, hadiust
arrived in town from the County of Northampton. It was late
in the evening, and was set down by the coach in Clerkenwell..
on his way to Hammersmith, where he was then to have re...
sided. He was greatly inebriated, and stopped at a public-house.
near Hick's Hall, called the Magpye and Stump, where he staid
some time, but at length fell asleep. The landlady was desirous
of getting him out of the house, and he was put out, but in a
short time returned. On the occasion of his return, Cook, the
defendant, who was in the house, interfered and assaulted him
in the most wanton, unprovoked, and outrageous way ; not
content with that, he dragged him to the New Prison, where
he was confined till the neat day, and then on paying Cook a
seven-shilling piece, Cook consented that he should be liberated,
and for form's sake, he was taken up before a Magistrate at
Hatton Garden, and discharged.
For thii assault and false imprisonment, this bill of indictment
was preferred and found. The prosecutor proved his case as
above stated, and in that he was fully and unequivocally sup-
ported by the testimony of two most respectable witnesses, who
declared the conduct of Cook to be the most wanton, unneces-
sary, and ferocious they ever beheld.
On the part of the defendant the landlady of the public house,
and a great number of persons belonging to the Police Office
and to the Gaol of the New Prison, were examined, but th-ir
testimony did not answer what the defendant expected, for the
Jury found him Guilty.

THURSDAY, JUNE 6.
CRIM. CON.
VERELST V. STAPLF.S.
This was an action brought to recover compensation its
damages for the injury' which the plaintiff sustained by the cii-
minal intercourse that took place between the defendant and
the wife of the plaintiff.
The d:►mages were laid at €20,0001.
Mr. ALLEY opened the pleadings, and the ATTonNtt.Gt-
NEfAL stated the case. _ _

It appeared that the plaintiff is a Gentleman of fortune, whose
family is well known in the respectable and honourable past
of the society of this country. The defendant is a Geudemass
who holds the rank of Major in the army. The plaintiff waa
married in the ) loos to his present wife Miss Herbert, the
daughter of a Gentleman of that name in the South of Ireland.
Her beauty and her moral demeanour were proverbial, and until
her unfortunate intercourse with the defendant, the tongue a
slandr never imputed to her a fault.
John Preston, the gardener, stated, that happening to anew"
7.1 dror; instead of the footman, he chanced to hive Ittn.in6s
the drawing-room, where the &fend:int Major staples and hisk
mistress were together. She was standing against a tahle
under the pier glass, and the Major was standing with her. Hss
had his left hand round her waist, and his right hand ---(hen
the witness gave a description of the attitudes of the respecti•re
parties in terms of such a glowing description, that we must for-
bear to follow him). He said a great confusion was manifests
and he quitted th- room.
Sarah Humber was the ,next witness examined. She was
Lady's maid to Mrs. Verelst, and lived in the family upwards-
of two years. She deposed in strong terms as to the stole*
affection that Mr. Verelst always manifested fowards his ,wife,
and that the first knowledge she had of defendant was at Mar-
rowgate. In June last the family settled at Old Windsor,wbere -
the criminal intercourse unfortunately took place.
The witness then proceeded to sheW what came within her
knowledge, and she proved two instances, one oh the 20th of
October, and the other on the Sth of December last, when that
intercourse occurred. On the first occasion the Major slipped
into her mistress's bed-chamber for ten minutes, after all the
family had gone to bed (for Mr. and Mrs. Verelst did not sleep
together); and on the second, the Lady slipped into the Major's
bed-chamber, and staid there from twelve at night till half.past
six o'clock in the morning.
This was cocroboratedby Dorothy Bates, who also was on
the watch, and observed it, and by John Sayers, the footman.
An attempt was made to set up a plea of retaliation, by
stating the inconstancy of Mr. Verelst towards his lady, but in
this the Counsel for the defendant failed; and then he (Mr.
Setjeant Zest) addressed the Jury in mitigation of damages.
Lord 4LIANSUROIigai mad. snit', ICV/ continents on the

S

ar.

711

N,

PITT V. HUNT.

evidence, and the Jury, without' retiring, brought in a verdict
for plaintitl—cdarna6es 2000 h

This was a similar action with the former. It appeared that
the plah:tiff *as formerly an auctioneer at Southampton, but
lately resided in London. The defendant had been his appren-
tice, and, at the time of the perpetration of the offence was
about fifteen years of age. The cause of action arose bAween
five and six years ago, and it appeared in the course of the evi-
dence, that the lady had had four or five chihiren, and was
suckling one of them when she admitted the defendant to her
embraces. During the absence of her husband, the nurse came
into her mistress's bed room one morning with the child, and
discovered the defendant in bed with her. The excuse she
assigned for so indecorous a proceeding was, that the poor lad
had got a complaint in his bowels, and she took him to her bed
to comfort him. At other times they were seen in bed together
by some of her female friends, without any anxiety fur conceal-
ment.
The A r-roa 14 EY-GEN eRAL, for the defendant, declined mak-
ing any defence ; and
Lord ELLENKOROUGH, in addressinv the Jury, was at a loss
to know what damages a plaintiff could expect for the loss of so
abaniloned a profligate It seemed to.hiin as if the wife had
seduced the apprentice boy, and that he was the party scduccd ;
by the fact being proved, they must find some verdict for the
plaintiff.
.The Jury immediately returned a verdict of 40s. damages for
tile plaintiff:
•