The National Register.
London, England, 1821-04-16 00:00:00

lie

V

-410—
GLOUCESTER. ..!
CIVIL SIDE.
CRISS. COL—WATER HOUSE, EMI), v. COL.VERIKELET.
'ibis case, which has excited so much interest among
the fashionable visitors to the town of Cheltenham,
and among the inhabitants of the surrounding co 1111 l les,
came on to be tried on Saturday. The Court was
crowded to excess. The damages were laid at 20,0001.
Mr. Jervis proceeded to address the Jury. The plain-
'tiff; Mr. Waterhouse, was the son of the late Mr. Wa-
terhouse, who was formerly a merchant of eminence,
carrying on business in London. In the year 1810 be
went to the Isle of Man, where he became acquainted
with a very respectable family, of whom the unfortunate
lady, who was the suitject of the present action, was ihe
eldest .laughter. He alluded to Captaiti and Mrs. Blake.
The plaintiff was then about 20, and the lady nearly of
the sane age, but rather younger. On the 16th of Sep-
tember, 1812, with the mutual consent of their parents,
they were married. Soon after their union it was found
. convenient, from the pecuniary circumstances of Air.
Waterhouse, that he should retire with his lady to live
in some cheap part of the kingdom ,• they went in con.'
sequence to reside at Scarborough. In the course of the
three following years they were blessed with three chil.
dreo. two girls and a boy.—ln the winter of 1818. a
M rs.Probytt, who had been an early friend of Mrs..
' Waterhouse, arrived at Cheltenham for the benefit of
her health. Their intimacy was, of course. renewed t
and, through the medium of this lady, the defendant,
Col. Berkeley, was introduced to the plaintiff and his
wife about the beginning of the year 1819 No parti-
cular intercourse followed between • the Gentlemen,
nothing further having happened between them than an
exchange of cards. On the i6th of April, in that year,
Mr. Waterhouse went to London to s.• his brother,
who was, at that time, In an ill state of health. He
contiuted absent till the 10th of May, when he returned
to Cheat- in. On the 10th of July following, he was
again under the necessity of quitting home, for the pur-
pose of going to Jersey to see a sister. On this occasion
he was absent a little more than a month. He returned
to Charlton on the 15th of August. In the beginning
of the year 181 g, it had been proposed to Mr. Water-
house, in consequence of the increasing state of his
family, having had a fourth child born at Charlton, to
proceed to Jamaica, to endeavour to obtain a situation,
by which he might be enabled the better to consult the
comforts and happiness of those he so tenderly loved,
for up to this time he did not entertain a doubt that he
was in full possession of the warmest aftections of his
laity. On the 18th of January, in the last year, he left
Charlton Kings for Bristol, with a view of embarking
forthwith for Jamaica. Adverse winds detained him in
port till the 14th of February, when he proceeded on
his voyage. It might beroper here to remark, that on
thus leaving his wife for Jamaica, Mr. Waterhouse left
her under the same protection as he had on the two


former occasions, with an ample provision for her main.
tenance during his absence. Front Jamaica Mr. Water-
house returned in July, and knowing that he had had
uo tnterc'.urse with his wife from the Wilt of January
preceding, the Jury might better imagine than he wdb
capable of describing, the agonized situation itt which
he was thrown on being informed of the course which
she had adopted, and of her being then far advanced in
pregnancy. He went to Cheltenham, bet took the
precaution of avoiding the abode of his wife. He re-
mained there three days after the cemmunication of the
painful intelligence, and then left the price, determined
never to see her again. In the mean time his suspi-
cions, which were unhappily but too well founded, were
confirmed by an intercepted letter—the contents of
which, as it had come from Mrs. Waterhouse, he was
not at liberty to state. It was addressed to the present
defendant, in language calculated to ezcite sensations
which he would not venture to express. The suspicions
were. however, more fatally supported, for, on the 11th
of November, being a period of 42 weeks, from the day
on which the plaintiff left his wife, she was delivered of
smother female child, which, from the course of nature,
could not by possibility he his. He would now proceed
to state also, the evidence of which he was in possession
• against the defendant, and from which it wotihi appear
most clearly, that he had been guilty of criminal inter-
course with the plaintill's wife. And this he would
make out, not only by the testimony of living witnesses,
but by letters, in the hand-writing of Colonel Berkeley
himself. The first that passed between the parties upon
the subject was of the date of the Ist of May, 1819 ,
and now the Jury would see the materiality of the dates,
to which he had requested their particular attention.
Now the letter in question from Colonel Berkeley to
Mrs. Waterhouse, was dated the Ist of May, during
that absence. It was in the following terms:—
" Nothing but the fear of losing an opportunity of
seeing you, could induce ins to write, hut I am obliged
to be in London on Monday, therefore I now send. To-
night, at nine, I will be in the appointed spot. If you
love me do not fail my—there is Ito danger. '
He (Mr. Jervis) was in possession of 24 letters and
sight notes, written by the deiendant to Mrs. W'ater-
lumse, which were obtained from that lady on the 12th
of December, in consequence of Mr. W iteilluuse, with
his Solicitor, having foue to her I.elAint and °Wilted
them by means whim, under the eircomistaticc.., were
not to be reprobated. The Learned Comisel then pro.
seeded to read the letters in question, which were couched
iu ridiamlously passionate terms, and contained allusions
which could leave little doubt as to the nature of the
intimacy that had subsisted, and fit.ally, made an ant-
meted and eloquent appeal to the Jury, to COmpellbate,
es couch as damages could couapebsate, the plattniff, for
the injuries which he and his helpless intaut faintly had
rugs ned.
The witnesses were then called, and ten letters from
the Colonel were put in and read.
Mr. Taunton, in a powerful speech, denied that the
act of adultery had been proved; but even if it had,
concluded that the plaintili had bet little reason to