The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-10 00:00:00

AUGUST 10, 1846.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Guildford, Friday, Aug. 7.

COOKE V. WETHERELL.

The above cause was resumed this morning at nine
o'clock.

Elizabeth Revell deposed that, in September, 1843,
she was in the service of Mr. Wetherell at Byfield, and
her husband was engaged as coachman. While she was
in the defendant's service, several little things were ob-
served between Mr. Wetherell and Mrs. Cooke which
excited attention, and at three o'clock on one Sunday
morning she saw them both go into Mrs. Cooke's bed-
room, and they remained there in the dark for twenty
minutes, when they came out and went down stairs.
Witness had frequently seen Mrs. Cooke go from her
own bed-room early in the morning to her father's with
her dressing-gown, and after she had gone to bed she
had heard their bed-room doors open and shut. Upon
another occasion she went into Mrs. Cooke's bed-room
in the morning, and distinctly observed upon the bed the
appearance of two persons having lain upon it. The
witness then gave similar testimony to the other wit-
nesses with regard to the appearance of Mrs. Cooke
before her departure for the country and upon her re-
turn. Soon after Mr. Wetherell was in the Queen's
Bench raison. She went there to see him, and he asked
her if she had heard any thing about what Mr. Russell
and his wife had to say about him and his daughter,
and she told him that she had. She saw the defendant
out again a day or two afterwards, and he brought up
the subject a second time, and asked what Mrs. Russell
had said. She told the defendant what Mrs. Russell
stated, and that she suspected Mrs. Cooke had miscar-
ried. She likewise told him what the washerwoman
said, and he became very red, and turned his face away;
and he then said, " Well, if I choose to wash my linen
before I send it away, what has that to do with my
daughter?" Witness remarked that his daughter's linen
also appeared to be washed, and to this be made no
reply. At this time Mr. Wetherell owed her husband
some money, and upon his saying that he did not care
about what the Russells said, but he wished she would
go out of the way, she told him that if he paid her what
he owed them she would go away the next day.
Cross-examined—The defendant generally came down
to Byfield on Saturday night, in order to be ready to
perform divine service the next Sunday. Mrs. Cooke
always went to church on the Sunday. Before the este.-
btishment was broken up, there were four male servants
and three females kept at Byfield. She was aware that
the defendant was in difficulties, and that he used to
travel in different directions in order to avoid the sheriff.
Proceedings had been taken by her husband against the
defendant to recover his wages, and latterly Mr. Cooke
had acted as his attorney against defendant.
By Serjeant SnEE—She only knew that from what
had been told her, and did not know it of her own
knowledge.
Margaret Langridge, lady's maid in the family, de-
posed that she had frequently seen the defendant and
his daughter kiss one another in, as she considered, an
improper manner. She had seen them do this when
Mrs. Cooke had nothing but a dressing-gown over her
night. dress. She remembered Mrs. Cooke coming down
to Byfield after the marriage, and witness slept with
her, and she remembered one night, after she had un-
dressed her for bed, she told her that she (witness)
might go to bed, as she was going to her papa's room,
and she went out of her bed-room. Witness went to
sleep, and was awoke by Mrs. Cooke coming into her
bed-room, and from the appearance,of the fire and the
candle she should say she must have been away for three
hours. She did the same thing another night, after she
was undressed, but she was not away so long, and not
more than half an hour. She had repeatedly seen the
father and daughter embrace each other when they had
nothing but their night-gowns and dressing-gowns on.
They did this both at night and in the morning, and as
she considered in an indecent manner. Mr. Wetherell
had no trousers on—nothing but his stockings and slip-
pers ; and both before and after the marriage, she had
seen him put his arms around his daughter's neck, and
press her to him in au indecent manner.
Cross-examined—Witness went into defendant's ser-
vice in March, 1842, and she noticed the familiarities
very shortly afterwards, and always thought defendant's
conduct very indecent ; but, notwithstanding this, she
assisted in promoting the runaway marriage with Mr.
Cooke, and was quite aware for some time before that
secret courting was going on. Mr. Cooke used to come
to the house when the father was out. She thought
what she had seen was very indecent and improper, but
did not say a word about it to Mr. Cooke. The wit-
ness admitted, in further cross-examination, that she
did not make so full a statement when she was before
summoned at Croydon ; but she accounted for this
by saying that the questions were not put to her.
She said that after Mr. and Mrs. Cooke went away
from Byfield, they took up their residence in fur-
nished apartments in Welbeck-street ; but she declared
that Mr. Cooke never staid out all night while they were
there ; but on one occasion he did stay out till three
in the morning. She had been to No. 29, Seymour-
street, and saw a lady there, but did not know her name
She had heard it was Mrs. Dayton.
Elizabeth Cra.uford deposed that she was engaged by
Mr. Wetherell to make his bed and wait upon him while
he was in the Queen's Bench prison. Mrs. Cooke was
in the habit of visiting him every day, and she was in
and out until the evening. In consequence of what she
had heard relating to the connexion between Mr.
Wetherell and his daughter, she used to make the bed
in a particular manner, and she frequently remarked
that the sheets had been turned from the top to the
bottom, and she also observed other appearances which
excited her suspicion. She also said that she several
times found Mr. Wethereli's room, door locked when
Mrs. Cooke was there, and sometimes when she knocked
she was kept two or three minutes before the door was
opened, and sometimes she went away to another room
because she could not wait. She spoke to Mr. Wetherell
about the door being locked, and he said he locked it
because he was afraid Mr. Cooke would send some one
to insult his wife.

Cross-examined—Mr. Cooke was a prisoner in the
Bench before Mr. Wetherell came there, and a lady
used to come there and walk about with him on the
parade. She generally came to tile prison on a Sunday,
and they used to call her Mrs. Cooke. She could not
say whether Mr. Cooke was twice in the prison, be-
cause "so many gentlemen came in and out."—(A
laugh.) She was dismissed from attending in the prison
because the governor suspected she had brought spirits
into the prison, and she refused to be searched. She had
taken spirits into Mr. Cooke's room, but did not see the
lady who was called Mrs. Cooke in the room at the
time.
By the Jury—The door was not always locked when
Mrs. Cooke came to see her father.
Williain Hammerton, a person employed at the Sheriff's
lock-up house, in Chancery-lane, deposed that while Mr.
Wetherell was confined there, he had seen Mr. Wetherell
sitting by tile side of his daughter with his arm round
her neck and his hand on her breast. He had also seen
her sitting upon his bed in his bed-room.
By the Court—The bed-room was the only private
room that Mr. Wetherell had.
Mr. Young, a clerk at the Weedon station upon the
Birmingham Railway, deposed that he knew the defend-
ant, and in the autumn of 1843, he directed him to for-
ward any letters that might be brought to him by his
coachman, to the address, " T. C. Mills, Esq., Post-office,
Gloucester." He identified some envelopes that were
produced, as those he had sent in pursuance of the direc-
tions given to him by the defendant.
Cross-examined—Believe he told Mr. Wetherell at

this time that a " gentleman" was waiting for him on the
other side. Tie afterwards heard that person was a
sheriff's officer.

Evidence was next adduced to show that letters, ad-
dressed as stated by the last witness, were sent through
the post-offices at Chepstow, Gloucester, and other
places, and that they came into the possession of the
defendant.
The statement, made in pursuance of a judge's order,
of the places where the adultery was charged to have
been committed was then put in. The act was charged
to have been committed at Eaton-place, at Gloucester,
Chepstow, Monmouth, Bath, Bristol, Clifton, and lastly
at the Queen's Bench prison in the county of Surrey.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
A great number of letters were read in the course of
the case, but the following were the only material ones
relied upon by the plaintiff in support of the action,
The first was a letter dated 20th October, 1842, a
week after the marriage of the plaintiff. It was as fol-

will not be required for any long period of time, but that
we may soon let the house. This will be the most im-
portant step we can take at present, and we must endea-
vour, through this troublesome year, to remain as snug
as we can, and a good let would materially assist us to
shake off a certain party. Prayerz can do wonders for
us! Should it not bring relief in greatest straits, it pro-
motes resignation and acquiescence in the Divine. will;
ard, after all, this should be the object of our principal
aim, that God's will may be done. God be with you to-
morrow, and with your affectionate parent, _

" CHARLES WETHERELL."
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL', then rose to address the jury
for the defendant. He said that he quite agreed with
the observation made by his Learned Friend in his
opening speech, that this was truly a criminal proceed-
ing, but he said he did not think a jury could be found
who would or who ought to convict the defendant upon
such evidence as that which had been adduced in support
of the charge against him. They were called upon to
believe that the defendant, a clergyman, had not only
been guilty of the crime of adultery, but that he com-
mitted it with his own daughter, and that he had not
only been guilty of an incestuous intercourse with her
after her marriage but also before it, and that he was
so reckless in the gratification of his guilty passion
that he had even continued the intercourse since
this action had been brought against him. lie should
contend that this charge was altogether monstrous
and improbable, and that it was impossible for the
jury to believe that a young woman like Miss
Wetherell, should leave her husband, and yield
herself up to an incestuous intercourse with her father,
under such odious and profligate circumstances. It
might be said that the witnesses had sworn positively to
certain facts which left no doubt of the guilt of the par-
ties ; but lie would remind the jury that they were not
called upon, although witnesses might choose to swear
positively to them, to believe circumstances which must
be considered revolting and impossible in the opinions
of any man of discretion and judgment. They would
remember that the question the jury now had to decide,
was not whether the defendant had been extravagant,
and had squandered away his daughter's fortune most
improperly, or whether there had been more freedom
and affection exhibited by them than was usual between
father and dau ;liter, but what they had to say by their
verdict was, whether or not it was proved that there had
been a criminal and incestuous intercourse between them,
and whether that intercourse had been continued and
repeated time after time under circumstances of the
most notorious profligacy, the daughter being a young
married woman, and the defendant an old man in holy
orders, and who was proved to have performed the sacred
duties that devolved upon him during the whole period
when this most odious connexion was alleged to have
existed. He said there could be no doubt from the
evidence, that Mr. Cooke had run away with Miss
Wetherell, under the impression that he should receive
a fortune with her, and that he was bitterly disappointed
in this respect ; but the jury should recollect that Mr.
Wetherell was no party to this, for he had distinctly
refused his daughter's hand to Mr. Cooke. When, how-
ever, the marriage had taken place, he expressed a readi.
ness to dispose of all the property at By field and Eaton-
place, and to settle the proceeds upon his daughter, so
that it was clear that at this time he was anxious to do
all in his power to make reparation for the injustice he
had committed with regard to his daughter's
property. Mr. Cooke, it appeared, was not
satisfied with this, but had most improperly
taken possession of the property in the house in Eaton-
place, and refused to admit the defendant to his own
house, and there was no doubt that from this time Mr.
Wetherell entertained a repugnance for him and desired
to keep him at arms length; and the jury must alFo feel
that besides the circumstances to which he had alluded,
there must have been some other grave cause of com-
plaint of the conduct of Mr. Cooke. Could they doubt
that he was living in adultery with the person whose
name had been mentioned ? Ire did not mean to say
that this was any reason why he should not obtain a
verdict if he made out his case, but when they saw how
active an agent the woman who had lived with him had
been in getting up this case, and when they recollected
how she had tampered with the witnesses, he was sure
the jury would feel that the evidence was open to very
great suspicion. The woman he referred to most probs..
bly was actuated by a strong desire to enable Mr.
Cooke to get a divorce, in the expectation, per-
haps, that she should, in that case, become Mr. Cooke's
wife, and she had taken every means in her power to
get up the case against the defendant. Notwithstand-
ing this, however, it appeared to him that the only wit-
ness in the case, whose evidence really affected the de-
fendant, was Emma Williams, who stated that the
defendant and his daughter had slept in the same bed
at Chepstow. Now he did not mean to impute perjury
to this witness—he did not think ho was justified in
doing so—but he did contend most confidently that she
was mistaken on that point. All the rest of her evi-
dence might be perfectly true. The parties were at the
hotel—they did stay two nights, but as to their sleeping
in the same bed, there was no truth in it ; and she had
probably only made that statement in consequence of
the means that were taken to warp and bias her judg-
ment. The jury would not forget that she was speak-
ing to a circumstance that was represented to have
occurred ten years before. There did not appear to
have been any reason why she should take particular
notice of it, and he would ask the jury, as men of the
world, and men of common sense, whether it was likely
that she could recollect what she states so positively?
The jury would recollect what had occurred with re-
gard to the picture. If she really could identify Mr.
Wetherell, why was the picture left in the manner de-
scribed. At the first trial, too, the witness denied that
any picture had been shown to her. It was true that
in point of fact no person did actually show her the
picture, but it was left in the room for her to see, and
the jury would consider whether her explanation of that
contradiction was a satisfactory one. He should, how-
ever, show that this witness was incorrect in one or two
particulars, and should likewise show by positive
testimony, that she was completely mistaken
with regard to the rooms occupied by Mr.
Wetherell and his daughter. The learned Ser-
geant then alluded to the circumstance of Mr. Cooke
having induced the witnesses to make an affidavit of the
truth of their original statements to him, and said that
this was an additional proof that the witnesses had not
been justly dealt with, and it showed there was no evi-
dence to pledge them to thes statements they made,
whether in Court or not. Did the jury doubt that Mr.
Cooke and Mrs. Baynton were the real attorneys in this
cause, and that the evidence had been got up at the
house in Seymour-place? His Learned Friend bad stated
that, before the production of Eleanor Williams as a
witness, there had been a denial that Mr. Wetherell and
his daughter had ever been at the Beaufort Arms, but
this was not so.

Sergeant . SEIEE—Show me any part of the former
case where the fact was admitted?

Sergeant CHANNELL proceeded—lie remembered per-
fectly well stating that it was very likely they did go
there in the course of their tour, and the report of his
speech that appeared at the time confirmed what he now
stated. The Learned Sergeant then proceeded to state
that he should produce evidence that Mr. Wetherell met
a highly respectable gentleman, Captain Hickman, in the
course of that tour, and that he introduced himself and
his daughter to him, and they afterwards were at the
Beaufort Arms together ; and he should satisfy the jury
by the clearest evidence, that Captain Hickman and
family occupied the suite of rooms, which were repre-
sented to have been occupied by the defendant, and
that the witness Williams was entirely mistaken in this
matter. With regard to the evidence of the servants,
as to the affection that appeared to exist between the
defendant and his daughter, he submitted that it
merely proved innocent fatherly affection, exhibited
perhaps with a little more warmth than was
usual with persons standing in that relation-
ship to each other, but still offering no proof
of the commission of such an awful crime as
that imputed to the defendant. The Learned Ser-
geant then commented upon a part of the case which
cannot be more particularly alluded to, and said it was
monstrous to suppose that if the tour in August was
taken for the purpose which was attempted to be esta-
blished on the part of the plaintiff, that the guilty par-
ties would have brought back with them such conclusive
evidence of their guilt. A number of witnesses had been
called to depose to conversations, and other matters, re-
presented to have taken place between them and the de-
fendant and his daughter, and the jury would see that he
was entirely in the power of those persons, for they
placed the occurrence when no person else was by,
and neither Mr. Wetherell nor his daughter could
be called to contradict them. As to the evi-
dence given by the servants, did the jury be-
lieve that if they really did see the abominable conduct
they described, and were satisfied that the communication
existed between the father and the daughter, they would
have remained is the house, and been witnesses of it?
And he would ask them whether it was not much more
likely that they had put incorrect constructions upon
most innocent familiarities? Was it proper to place reli-
ance upon the testimony of the lady s maid, who repre-
sented circumstances tending to show that a criminal
connexion bad taken place between the father and the
daughter before the marriage, and yet she was the con-
fidante and active agent in procuring the marriage with
Mr. Cooke. As to the name of Mills being announced,
was it not perfectly clear that this was done to avoid
being accused ? but to clear up all ground of suspi-
cion on this point, he should show that Mr.
Wetherell and his daughter travelled as father and
daughter all through that tour ; that that was the rela-
tionship always represented to exist between them, and
this being the case, it was idle to suppose that they in-
tended to gratify' any unnatural passion for each other.
The Learned Counsel in the course of his address com-
mented upon a variety of other facts in the case which can-
not be more directly alluded to, and concluded a very
able and eloquent speech by expressing a confident opi-
nion that when the jury had heard the evidence he should
lay before them, they would be perfectly satisfied that
this foul charge was not made out against the defendant,
and that they would return a verdict in his favour.
Tho following evidence was then adduced for the de-
fendant:—

Miss George, who keeps the Beaufort Arms, Chepstow,
proved the position of the two rooms, Nos. 13 and 17, in
which the defendant and his daughter slept whilst at
the hotel, and that two beds were charged for in her bill.
Captain iliclinaan deposed to having met with Mr.