The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-07 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Guildford, Thursday, Aug. 6.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Special Jury.)
COOKE V. WETHERELL, CLERK.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. John
Mynde Cooke, against the Rev. Charles Wetherell, his
father-in-law, for criminal conversation with his wife.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Mostyn Chambers, and Mr.
E. James appeared for the plaintiff. Sergeant Channell,
Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Lash were for the defendant.
It will be remembered that this action was tried at the
last summer assizes, at Croydon, when a verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff, with 3,0001. damages ; but upon
subsequent application to the Court, a new trial was
ordered, which now came on to be disposed of. The
proceedings appeared to create a.great deal of interest,
and the Court was crowded the whole day.
Mr. Sergeant SIIEE addressed the jury, and detailed
in his novel, clear, able and forcible manner, the cir-
cumstances of the disgusting and horrible case which
he said it was his painful duty to have to lay before
them. He then called the following witnesses :
Mr. W. H. Reade examined by Mr. James—l have
known the plaintiff for several years, and was present
at his marriage with Mrs. Cooke at St. George's, Hano-
ver-square, on the 25th September, 1842. The marriage
took place in presence of the father of the lady. About
nine or ten days afterwards, I called upon the defendant
in order to ascertain what liabilities the defendant had
incurred by his marriage, and this was done in conse-
quence of a bill having been presented to the plaintiff,
accepted by his wife. I saw the defendant and made
the inquiry of him, and mentioned one bill of 5501., of
which his daughter was the acceptor. The defendant
said there was but this one bill, and that it would forth-
with be arranged. I saw the defendant a second time
the same day, and he told me he had seen his solicitor
since I was with him, and he should decline having any
further communications with me upon the subject. In
the beginning of October I went down to Byfield, ac-
companied by the plaintiff, and I there saw the defen-
dant and his daughter. There was a difficulty about
our admission to the meeting, and Mr. Cooke said he
had only come to demand to see his wife, and to take
her away with him. He was eventually admitted, and
I heard some conversation in a loud and angry tone be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant, bat we all left, and
by arrangement with Mrs. Cooke returned to Byfield
on the following day, and it was fully arranged that
Mrs. Cooke should accompany her husband back to
town, and she did so on the following day. This was
on the Sunday fortnight after the marriage had taken
place. Mr. Cooke appeared very kind and affectionate
to his wife. At that time he had only just come of age,
and ho had been admitted and was practising as an at-
torney. I know nothing of any liability incurred by the
plaintiff except the bill I mentioned.
Cross-examined—l am a bill discounter by professiou.
My offices are in Duke-street, St. James's. I have had
money transactions with Mr. Cooke, and at the time of
his marriage I owed him five or six hundred pounds. I
paid him that sum, and he has once owed me money,
but he purged himself of the debt in the Insolvent Court.
I did not know the marriage was to take place forty-
eight hours before the ceremony. Captain Gadsell and
Mr. Waddy signed the marriage register. I myself
fetched Miss Wetherell in Mr. Cooke's brougham to
be taken to be married. Mr. Wetherell proposed to sell
everything at Byfield and Eaton-place, and settle the
proceeds on his daughter, and then go abroad and re-
side. I afterwards took possession of the house in Eton-
place, and when Mr. Wetherell endeavoured to move in,
we refused to let him do so, and he remained outside for
an hour or more. Mr. Waddy, Mr. Cooke, and my-
self went the day after this down to Byfield, but I swear
it was not our intention also to take possession of the
property there. I wished nothing of the kind. I did
not see any one seize a poker, neither did I see Mrs.
Cooke throw her arms round her husband's neck dur-
ing the altercation that took place at Byfield. Ido not
know where Mr. Cooke is living now. His last resi-
dence was in Seymour-street Edgeware-road. Ido not
know a Mr. Baynton.
Re-examined—Mr. Waddy is a Parliamentary agent,
and Mr. Gadsell is a captain in the army. At the time
Mr. Wetherell agreed to dispose of the property in Lon-
don and at Byfield, it was stated that everything had
been bought with Miss Wetherell's money, and it was in
consequence of this statement that Mr. Cooke took pos-
session of the house and property in Eaton-place. Mr.
Cooke did not owe five shillings beyond what he could
pay at the time of his marriage, and all his embarrass-
meats had occurred since.

The letters of the sth and 6th October, written by
Mrs. Cooke to her husband were here put in and read.
Mr. G. H. Corfield, examined by Sergeant SIIEE—
I am an attorney; and acted in that capacity for Mr.
Wetherell in 1842, as referree to the affairs of Mr.
Cooke, and it was part of my duty to ascertain the
liabilities of Mrs. Cooko previous to her marriage, and
I found the amount to be from 1,5001. to 2,000/. I re-
member in particularr one acceptance of Miss Wetherell
for 550/., and the furniture in Eaton-place had been
seized as security for the payment of this bill. Mr.
Wetherell and his daughter took up their residence at
Mivart's Hotel, in Oct. of the year 1842, and Mr. Cooke
endeavoured to see her, and I and Mr. Wetherell ar-
ranged that an interview should take place on the 22nd
of November, and Mr. Cooke came about seven in the
evening. He did not, however, see either Mr. Wetherell
or his daughter, because the former objected to it, and
he sent me down to pacify Mr. Cooke, and while I was
gone he took his daughter away in a cab. Mr. Cooke
was very much disappointed and excited at this proceed-
ing. Prior to this I had seen Mr. Wetherell near
Gray's Inn. Mr. Cooke was with me, and when Mr.
Wetherell saw him he ran away. I fellowed and over-
took him, and insisted upon his accompanying me to the
chambers of a gentleman named Nesbit, to clear up
something he had stated I had said respectieg Mr.
Cooke. I then told him that Mr. Cooke had come to
me in a very excited state, and said that the defendant
had said, that I had told Mivart that Cooke's wife was
unchaste when he married her, and I asked the defend-
ant whether he had ever made any such statement,
and the defendant admitted he had, and persisted
in the statement of my having said so to Mivart.
The witness corrected himself, and said this occurred
ten days after the proceeding he had alluded to at Mi-
vart's, and not before. He now proceeded with his evi-
dence. I insisted upon the defendant accompanying me
to Mivart's, and after objecting for some time he agreed
to do so, and two cabs were ordered, but when we ar-
rived at the hotel the defendant made his escape, and
would not see Mr. Mivart. Another appointment wes
made, but the defendant did not come. During my
connexion with Mr. Wetherell he frequently made use
of strange expressions towards the plaintiff, and on the
28th of October, when at my office, after discussing
different matters, he said he had heard a strange charac-
ter of Cooke, and asked if I knew him about town. I
replied that I did not. He then said he had heard
amongst other things that he was a man-whore, and that
he drove about the parks for hire. Upon another occa-
sion, when the defendant was endeavouring to induce
his daughter not to return to Mr. Cooke, he said amongst
other things that if she went back to him he would dis-
ease her, and another time I was present when the de-
fendant made his daughter take an oath that she would
never return to her husband. I thought he seemed to
possess very great influence upon her, for whatever reso-
lutions she came to when alone, they were all upset the
moment her father had been with her, but she generally
seemed anxious to return and live with Mr. Cooke. Ne-
gotiations were at this time going on regarding the first
nuptial settlement, and it was agreed by all parties that
Mr. and Mrs. Cooke should live apart until the set-
tlement was completed. I acted professionally for
Mr. Wetherell, on the 25th November, and I then gave
up all the papers to Mr. Nesbit.
Cross-examined—l was acting in these matters as the
attorney for Mrs. Cooke, and had not had any conversa-
tion with Mr. Cooke before. She was very anxious that
such a settlement should be made as would have the ef-
fect of protecting her father from legal proceedings.
When the defendant made his daughter take the oath
that she would not live with her husband, I said,
" Surely, you only wish this to be during your life."
The oath was proposed ; but I cannot say positively
whether it was taken or not. Mr. Wetherell all along
appeared to have the greatest animosity and antipathy
for the plaintiff. I once heard Mr. Wetherell say, that
his daughter's life was in danger from Mr. Cooke, and
she repeated the statement ; but I cannot state the time
when this occurred, I never heard from Mr. Cooke that