The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WES TERN CIRCUIT, EXETER, JULY 31.
SEDUCTION AND BREACH OF PROMISE.

COCKEY V. SMITH.
This was an action for a breach of premise of marriage un.
der circumstances of peculiar aggravation. The case excited
much interest, the plaintiff being the daughter of a deceased
clergyman,
and the youngest of several children, the
family, for many years past, havingresided at Dartmouth,in
great respect. She was also a young lady of considerable
personal attractions. The defendant is a young " limb of
the law," the son of a highly. respectable solicitor of Do-
votyort.

called as his first witness, Charlotte Cockey, sister tioo
athe
plaintiff. She deposed that Mr. Smith came to rt.
Mr: E 111. E, having detailed the circumstances of the case
t
mouth in the spring of 1835 to practise, en
and as the agent
and steward for Lord Clinton ; the families had been pre-
viously acquainted. In July, 1836, he paid his addresses
to her sister Hannah, when he made an engagement with
the plaintiff; the intimacy continued, the defendant being
received in the family as the accepted suitor of the plain-
tiff. In the autumn of 1836, he went to Devonport, and
on his return said he had told his father of engage-
ment, on which his father said he knew the family were
respectable, but was sorry her sister had no money.
He continued his attentions, and commissioned her to
purchase some furniture. In Feb. 1838, he left to go to Ash-
burton, and said he was to be in his father's office. Be-
fore this he lived in a cottage two miles out of Ashburton,
and kept bounds, engaging much:in the spirts of the field.
Defendant left for Devonshire, saying he expected he
should get into partnership with his father, and then he

should be able to marry. At the end of August be came
again, and dined with the plaintiff. He did not come to
the house afterwards. He was at Ashburton in October,
holding a Court for Lord Clinton, but he did not call o❑
her sister. On the 17th of November the plaintiff had a
child, such a circumstance being wholly unexpected by
every member of the family, —( Here the witness was very
much affected, and shed tears profusely.) Her brother-
, Mr. Soady, brought a letter from the defendant
the next day, in which he promised to marry her. She
was before in great agony, but on the contents of the let-
ter being made known to her it soothed her greatly. She
is now 31 years of age.
William Cockey, brother to the plaintiff, stated that he
had remonstrated with the defendant, and on telling him
he was a blackguard, he said he was sorry for that, but he
repudiated the parentage, and courted the fullest inquiry.
The child died about six weeks after the birth.

Mr. William Brooking Soady went to D evonport, and
sent for Mr. Smith, who came to Elliott's. Defendant
there said he would make every amends in his power.
" Well, I have no objection. lam ready and willing to
marry Miss Cockey." Defendant, after some other obser-
vations, said he would not shrink from his guilt, and after-
wards wrote a letter, stating—" I have this evening been
put in possession of an event that has this day occurred to
Miss Cockey. I beg t• assure you it is my intention to
act honourably, and I wish it to be communicated to her
that it is my intention, as soon as she is well enough, to
make her my wife." Witness said he would rather not
take the letter, unless he could be assured of his sincerity.
Plaintiff said he had written the letter, as he hoped it
would be received in sincerity, and no living creature
should turn him from the right or the left. It was after-
wards agreed that he should marry her in London as soon
as she had recovered, and witness left for Ashburton. The
next day Mr. Smith wrote witness a letter quite of a dif-
ferent description. The plaintiff had suffered severely in
her health and mind, and was now in town, at his house in
a miserable state. Defendant had said he had been drink-
ing much when he wrote the letter on the night of the 17th
of Nosember, but witness never saw a man more collected
under such circumstances.
Mr. Sergeant Bourns addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant at considerable length, and said it had been offered
to settle the case without bringing it into court, but the
plaintiff would not consent to it unless Mr. Smith admitted
the parentage, which he solemnly denied ; and he could
not, in the discharge of his duty, consent to advise him to
state that which be declared to be untrue, for the purpose
of lessening the amount of damages.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in summing up, observed that
no one could believe the denial of the defendant—it was a
pretence, indeed, and a bitter aggravation.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1,0001.
There were audible expressions of approval throughout
the Court. The trial terminated at 11 o'clock.

HOME CIRCUIT—LEWES, JULY 31.
Samuel Marchant, aged 36, was indicted for assaulting
Edward Baugh, a Lieutenant of the Navy, in her Ma-
jesty's service, he being at the time duly employed for
the prevention of smuggling, and on full pay, in the exe-
cution of his duty.
Lieutenant Edward Baugh stated that he was a Lieu-
tenant in the Royal Navy, and that lie was at present em-
ployed in the Coast Guard Service, and on full pay. In
the month of March last he received information of a quan-
tity of tubs of contraband spirits having been seized at a
cottage called Edburton, and in consequence of some fur-
ther information, he proceeded with two of his men to
the neighbourhood of the Devil's Dyke, where they
searched several barns, but could not discover any more
goods. His two men, named Young and Budden, then
went into another barn, and immediately afterwards he
heard a great scuffle, and the report of a pistol. He di-
aectly rushed into the barn, where he saw the prisoner
and several other men, and Marchant was struggling with
his chief boatman. Witness immediately called out that
he was an officer, and required the parties in the Queen's
name to desist. Young and Budden then tried to secure
the prisoner, who made a violent resistance, and said he
would see them -- before they should take him. The
prisoner was ultimately secured, and in his possession was
found a bottle full of spirit of the same description as that
which had been seized in the tubs. A sword- stick was
also found close to the place where the prisoner had been
standing. The prisoner then promised that if his arms
were loosened he would go quietly, but when he was re-
leased, he made a desperate resistance and attempted to
get away, and said that if he had fire-arms he would shoot
them. He also called the other men cowardly rascals for
allowing him to be taken. Witness and his men were all
assaulted by the prisoner; they had on at the time the
Coast Guard uniform. •

After other evidence, Lord DENMAN having summed
up, the Jury found the prisoner gnilty of a common assault.
The Court said that offences of this description were of
a most dangerous character, and must be put a stop
to. There was one circumstance in the prisoner's favour,
that although he had a most dangerous weapon—a sword
stick—at his command, it did not appear that be attempted
to make any use of it. If he had done so, his case would
have assumed a much more aggravated character. Under
all the circumstances, the Court, taking into consideration
that he had already been several months in gaol, did
adjudge that he be further imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for a period of six calendar months.
Jeremiah Nicholls, 22, Henry Johnson, 21, and Samuel
Hobbs, 21, were indicted for burglarously breaking and
entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Hassall, in the
parish of Heathfield, and stealing a large quantity of
property.

The case was one of a purely circumstantial character.
The three prisoners were seen within six miles of the pro-
secutor's heuse on the night the burglary was effected,
and two days afterwards they were seen carrying three
large bundles near a stone quarry at Mayfield, and in this
quarry the greater part of the stolen property was after-
wards found concealed.

The prisoners declared their entire innocence of the
charge, and Nicholls convulsed the Court with laughter by
the tact and ingenuity he displayed in cross-examining
the witnesses, and by his frequent allusion to "his learned
friend" who prosecuted.
The prisoners were found Guilty, and Hobbs (who
had been before convicted of felony) was transported for
life, and the other two prisoners for fifteen years.