The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-16 00:00:00

INTELLIGENCE-
, 1.;,,,.11 1 I? CUlT.—Croylon, Any,,,i le,
ref ere Lard thief ketice Tome!. and a COMM,n hey )
cooxe C. WETHitIiFLT., CLERK.
This was an aetien brought by the plaintiff sgiinet the d
fondant ter criminal conversation with his wife.
The ease was of a most extraordinary character, and it is said
that the damages were laid at 50,0001.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Montagu Chambers, and Mr.
Edwin Tames were for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Channell,
Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Lush for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SHKE opened the case, and said that the plain-
tiff was Mr. John Mynde Cooke, a young man, an attorney,
who was very respectably connected, being the son of Mr.
Cooke, of Capel Courth Herefordshire, and he came into
Court to complain of the most serious injury that could be
inflicted by one man upon another ; an injury that had em-
bittered the morning of his life, and which must deprive
him of all happiness hereafter. The defendant was a man
of forty-five, a minister of the Church of England, and at
present the rector of Byfield, in Northamptonshire, and
when he told them that he was charged with incest and
adultery with his own daughter, he (the Learned Counsel)
was sure the jury would give him credit for feeling the deep
re-pontibility of his task in having to lay such a case before
them. He would endeavour to lay the facts of this almost un-
exampled case before them with as much calmness as he could
command, and would give the jury that evidence which, in
his opinion, made out a clear and unanswerable case on the
part of the plaintiff. The defendant was most respectably con-
nected. He had married a daughter of a gentleman who at
the time filled the office of chief magistrate of the City of
London, and through his influence he obtained the rectory of
Byfield, which was worth 1,100/. a year, and also had a for-
tune of .20,000/. with his wife. who, however, had the con-
trol over that sum and she settled it upon her daughter, the
lady whose miscor:duct was that day the subject of their in-
quiry. In 1839, after her mother's death, the young lady
cairie of age, and the money was then transferred by the
trusiees to her name, and came under her control ; and it
appeared that her father took a splendid mansion in Eaton.
plaee, where he lived in a style of great splendour, and far
beyond his means ; and it would appear that, with the con-
sent of the young lady, her fortune was by degrees drawn
from the Bank of England, and eventually entirely squan-
dered away within a little more than two years
from the period of the young lady coming of age. The plain-
tiff was introduced to the family of the defendant about this
time. He was a young, man of between one and two and
twenty. He had just been admitted an attorney, and was very
successful in his profession ; and, having a fortune of his own
to the extent of 8,0001., the brightest prospects were before
him. In the summer of 1842 he met Miss Wetherell ; he was
pleased with her person, and he eventually offered her his hand
and was accepted. Mr. Cooke was sincerely attached to the
young lady, but he would not deny that he did expect to re-
ceive some fortune with his wife. Her father objected to
the marriage, and the terms of his refusal of Mr. Cooke
were barely civil, and eventually the parties were married
without his consent at St. George's Church, Hanover-square.
The young couple went on a tour for a short time, and upon
their return the father appeared to be friendly, and they went
to pay him a visit at his rectory at Byfield. Two or three
days had hardly elapsed when a gentleman named Mob
made his appearance, and produced an acceptance of Miss
Wetherelde for 500/., and insisted upon his right to look to
the newly-marled husband for payment. The plaintiff was
shocked at the news, and he felt that he had been cruelly de-
ceived both by his wife and her father. He knew that he was
leeally liable for the debts of his wife, and he therefore felt that
it was absolutely necessary for him to know the exact amount
of her liabilities and the real position of her affairs. Notwith-
standing that at this moment the plaintiff felt that he was
almost entirely ruined by the treachery of his wife and father-
in-law, his conduct towards the former appeared to be of the
kindest description, and he read a letter from his wife to the
pl iintiff couched in the kindest terms to bear out his statement.
The result of the inquiries made by the plaintiff satisfied him
that his wife was dreadfully involved. All her fortune had
been squandered, and she had three acceptances out to a very
large amount, and he felt it only due to himself to insist that
her father should give an account of his stewardship, and that
he should grant him an interview for that purpose. This took
place. and the defendant then admitted that he had wasted his
daughter's fortune, and that she had nothing left, and that
the furniture, houses, and everything they had, had been
made over by a bill of sale or warrant of attorney to different
pat ties who had adeanced money upon them. From this
time Mr. Wetherell offered him every obstruction and oppo-
sition in obtaining his rights, and his wife invariably took
the part of her father in resisting his wishes. After having
cottly arid unwillingly accompanied her husband to London
front 13)field, she eventually returned to her father, and
altlieugh the plaintiff repeatedly, in the most earnest and
atfeetionate manner, entreated her to return to him, she in-
variably refused and treated him with the utmost coldness and
anltindness, and he believed he (Mr. Sergeant Shee) should be
en'e to setae that the defendant had made the most shameful
cheeges against licr husband, and he in time succeeded in en-
tirely alienating her affections from him. There was, in fact,
a total absence of everything like that kind of feeling which
whiuld be exp e.trid to animate the breast of a young woman of
eix-anal-twenty towards a man to whom she had been married
only two months. —( The Learned Sergeant here read some
Itet era th it had pissed between the varies confirmatory of his
eta tement. ) Alr. Cooke at length was compelled to take pro-
ceeding; in Chancery, and eventually a deed was executed
by which the defendant admitted that he was indebted to
his daughter in a sum of 18,000/., and that large arrears
of interest were also due to her, and he undertook to
repay the amount by yearly instalments of 500/. ; but
to show that Mr. Cooke had acted in a perfectly disinterested
manner, he did not take any interest under the deed, but the
whole amount. was placed under the control and appointment
of his wife. Immediately after this deed was executed, the
defendant wrote a letter to Mr. Cooke, forbidding him his
Ito Ise, re om hating any intercourse with his wife. The
"4,2 e nt than referred to some other proceedings
tiler had tat:en pt ice, 1,1,1 sate that all along the plaintiff's wife
had evinced the utmost hostility to him, and opposed him in
every proceeding he adopted. The plaintiff could not account
f ,•uch conduct ; but at length he received some information
'which induced the most horrible impression upon his mind,
and his subsequent inquiries led to the present charge being
rat trle against the defendant. The parties who gave the infor-
nee ien ere persens of humble station certainly, but he believed
of uttldieteshed character, and the result of the inquiries made by
Mr. Cooke through their information left no deuht upon his mind
that the defendant had been guil• y of the dreadful crimes of incest
awl adultery. ile shouldcall before the jury the servants in the
bolsi, in Eaton-square, and they would prove that they had always
eatertained a suspicion of the character of the intimacy between
the defendant and his daughter, and that, having watched,
they ware satisfied that they were in the habit of continually
sleeping together as man and wife, and he should also prove
that the defendant was seen at all hours of the night in his
daughter's bedroom. The Learned Sergeant then stated other
Lies relating to the appearance of the; bed of the plaintiff's
-wife, which need not be further alluded to, but the effect of
which, he said, was to satisfy all the servants that a most im-
proper intercourse was being carried on. He likewise said he
should be able to prove that the defendant had been repeatedly
:seen in his daughter's bedroom, nearly naked, and she in the same
satiate. This was at the house in Eaton-square, and he said he
aboald be able to show that similar proceedings took place
at Byfield, and that there the same suspicions were
entertained. The Learned
_Sergeant then proceeded to
state that he should prove that suspicion having been
entertained that Mrs. Cooke was in the family way, from her
stout apeearance, and other indications, she had gone into the
country whh her father, and upon her return there were all the
the indications of a miscarriage having taken place. He then
went on to say that he should prove that the defendants went
neon a country expedition together, and he should show that at
the Beaufort Arms, at Chepstow, they slept together as man
and wife. After enumerating other circumstances, the Learned
Sergeant concluded a very able address by observing, that to
talk of the amount of damages in such a case as this was per-
fectly unnecessary ; if he made it out, he was sure the jury
would think no amount cf damages too large, or that any sum
could be a sufficient reparation to the plaintiff for the cruel in-
jury he had received.
The following evidence was then adduced:—
Sir. Wm. Hastings Reede, examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—I
knew the plaintiff in this action, and was present at his mar-
riage with Miss Wetherell. I produce the copy of the certificate
of the marriage on the 25th of September, 1842, at St.
George's, Hanover-square.
The certificate was put in and read. The name of the de-
fendant's daughter was wrongly described in the certificate as
Mary Emily instead of Mary Eliza.
Examination continued—Shortly after the marriage I called
upon the defendant at alivaree Hotel, for the purpose of asking
for some explanation respecting his daughter's property and
the liabilities the plaintiff had incurred as her husband. I also
wished to have some information respecting the accommodation
bills. The defendant told me that a great portion of her for-
tuae had been expended in purchasing furniture for the house
in Elton-square and at Byfield. The defendant mentioned
something to me abut an accommodation bill for 550/., and
which his daughter had accepted for him, and added that it was
seemed either by a warrant of attorney or a bill of sale. I
called a second time, when I met Mr. Nisbet, his solicitor, and
he then said that by advice he must decline entering further
into particulars. At the first interview he said he should sell
the furniture, horses, carriages, &c., and invest the amount for
the benefit of his daughter, and then retire from England. On
the same evening Mr, Cooke sent his man Johnson, and I
`hick Mrs. Cooke also, to take possession of the house in
Eaton-place, and I child there the same evening with Mr.
Cooke. The defendant and Mr. Nisbet, his attorney, came to
the house while we were there. They rang the: bell, and de-
mended entrance, but they were not let in. On the following
morning, in consequence of an intimation from the police, Mr.
Cooke and' myself attended the Queen-square Police-court,
and Mr. Nisbet complained that Mr. Wetherell had been
deprived tif the possession of his house improperly, and he pro-
duced a lease. Eventually the magistrate said he should order
possession to be given up, and Mr. Cooke accordingly gave
directions to his servants to give up possession. Upon this
same evening I, Mr. Cooke, and a gentleman named Waddy,
went down to Byfield rectory. Mr. Wetherell was there, and
after some little parley and hesitation, Mr. Cooke was admitted
alone, but I could see what took place inside the house,
although I was not admitted. There was an angry discussion,
and Mr. Ceoke said he came to demand his wife, and he was
anxious she should accompany him back to London. Wit-
ness heard her voice, and afterwards saw her. She seemed
to take part with her father, and spoke very angrily to her
leueband, in consequence of which Mr. Cooke said he
thous it it better she should not go with hint. He then de-
manded to lie let out, and after some further angry words
he came out of the house and joined us, and we then all re-
turned to Weedon, about ten or eleven miles from Byfield,
and Sir. Cooke appeared to be suffering extreme aguish of
mind, and seemed to be still anxious to take his Wife back
to London. I and Mr. Waddy afterwards saw Mrs. Cooke,
and after some conversation she agreed to go back with him
to town, and it was arranged that she should have her lug-
gage ready at an appointed hour. The letter produced is
in Mrs. Cooke's handwriting. They eventually, with Mrs.
Cooke, returned to London. I and Mr. Waddy reproached
Mrs. Coke with treating her husband in a cold and heartless
manner. I thought Mr. Cooke's conduct was proper under
the circumstances--it was affectionate and kind. After they
arrived in London I had opportunities of observing their con-
duct, and frequently saw them together. I was anxious to ob-
tain information from Mrs. Cooke relative to her property,
but I did riot find her very willing to give information, and she
seemed anxious to screen her father from the inquiry. I was
only consulted and acted as a friend of Mr. Cooke's. It was
through an intimate friend of mine that Miss Wetherell was
introduced to Mr. Cooke. The plaintiff appeared to suffer
very severely from what had taken place, and he was so much
excited on some occasions, that I deemed it prudent to remain
with him. Alr. Coke was twenty-three or twenty-four years
ohrwhen he married. Mr. Cooke's father was alanded proprie-
tor of great respectability in Herefordshire, and Mr. Cooke
derived an estate from him.
Cross-examined—Captain Godsell was the friend who
introduced Miss Wetherell to Mr. Cooke. He is a
captain on half-pay in a cavalry regiment. I have known
him nine or ten years. I never knew Sir. Cooke when
iiving on his own estate. It is not an estate, it is
merely a farm. It is occupied by a person named Hard-
wick. It is not in the occupation of Mr. Cooke's elder
'mother. Cooke introduced me to Mr. Waddy, and we were
all pretty intimate. I did not know Miss Wetherell until
the day she became Mrs. Cooke. No one was present at the
wiarriage but myself, Mr. Waddy, Captain Godsell, and Mr.
Cooke. It was a runaway marriage. Captain Godsell and
Sir. Waddy met us at the church. Mr. Waddy did not lend
111 r. Cooke any money on that occasion. After the marriage

have known each other a good many years.
Re-examined—Mr. Cooke's wife •I liabilities were pressed
upon him. Mr. Cooke has told me so, and that he was served
with a writ a fortnight after his marriage. Miss Wetherell is
two or three and thirty years old—much older than Mr. Cooke.
Mr. G. R. Cerfield examined by Mr. JAMES—I am a soli-
citor. I know the defendant, Mr. Wetherell, and had met him
on some occasions before the marriage of his daughter. After
this had taken place I acted as solicitor to Mrs. Cooke, and I
believe she was at that time in debt upon different liabilities,
acceptances, and accounts of attorney, to the amount of be-
tween 1,3001. and 1,5001. I do not know the acceptances
were for the accommodation of Mr. Wetherell. When I was
first called on to act for her, Mrs. Cooke was living in apart-
ments in Welbeck-street. This was in October, 1812. I re-
member being sent for one evening to Mivart's Hotel, where I
saw the defendant and Mrs. Cooke. I know that at this
time Mr. Cooke was very anxious for an interview with his
wife, and that Mr. Wetherell took her away with him, to
prevent him from doing so, by the back door of the hotel.
She wos taken away by stealth by a back staircase, and I
was sent down to pacify the husband, who had come to the
hotel purposely to have an interview with his wife. I never
saw Mrs. Cooke again. It had formally been arranged that
they should all meet together on this occasion, but this
was frustrated by Mr. Wetherell taking his daughter away.
Mr. Cooke afterwards came to me in a very excited manner,
and told me that Mr. Wetherell had just made a most extra.•
ordinary statement to him ; that he did not believe it, and he
hoped 1 should excuse his excited feelings, and give him a
plain answer to the question he would put to me. Mr. Cooke
then told me that Mr. Wetherell had told him that I had told
Mr. Mivart that Mr. Wetherell's daughter was unchaste when
he married her. I denied the statement most indignantly, and
offered to go at once with him to Mivart's, and we did so. Mr.
Mivart came down, and there was another interview afterwards
when the defendant was present. Upon his first seeing us, as
we got near the house, he ran away. I pursued, and on his
refusing to return, I threatened to pull him back by force, and
insisted on having the charge cleared up. We then proceeded
together to Mr. Nisbet's, and we had some conversation about
what had been stated by Mr. Wetherell, and the latter persisted
in stating that Mr. Mivart had told him that I had said his
daughter was unchaste when Mr. Cooke married her. Me.
Cooke then came into the room, and after some strong language
it was arranged that they should proceed to Mivart's lintel,
but they did not see Mr. Mivart, so that no further explana-
tion took place. Another appointment was male
but Mr. Wetherell did not attend. It was quite false that
1 had ever made any such statement as the one represented
to have been made by me. In consequence of these proceed •
ings, I declined to act as solicitor to Mrs, Cooke any longer.
During the unhappy differences between Mr. and Mrs. Cooke,
the defendant appeared anxious to retard a reconciliation, and
in all the conversations I had with him, he spoke in most die.
graceful terms of Mr. Cooke. and in the very first interview
with him he called -him a " man —," and said that he
understood he drove about the parks for hire.
Cross.examined by Mr. CLARKSON-I was surprised at
hearing what I did about Mr. Cooke, and if it had been
true, of course no one could be surprised at his refusing to
let his daughter go to live with such a man. I knew no-
thing of the parties until the time I was instructed to act
for Mrs. Cooke. Mrs. Cooke was certainly under other lia-
bilities than a bill for 550/. and a dressmaker's bill. There was
a warrant of attorney also for more than 8001. Mrs. Cooke
did not say that she wenf in fear of her life from the vio-
lence of her husband, but Mr. Wetherell said so, and she re.
peated it. She did not appear to be serious, and seemed
anxious to return to her husband, but her father prevented
her, and on one occasion he extracted an oath from her that
she would not return to her husband. Mr. Cooke's chief
object did not appear to be to get back his wife in order to
obtain possession of her money. She had no money. I was
offended at the defendant taking his daughter away in the
manner he did, and I said I considered Mr. Wetherell's con-
duct so disgraceful, that I should wash my hands of the whole
of the parties.
Re-examined—lt was very well known by all the parties that
Mrs. Cooke was under liabilities, but still Mr. Cooke was
anxious to have his wife back.
By Mr. CeaeKsoN—Witness afterwards received Mr. Nis-
bet's cheque for the sum of 550?., but he did not know where
it came from.
The deed, showing that Miss Wetherell was originally en-
titled to a fortune of 20,000/., and that she came of age in
1839, was then put in and read. The various letters referred
to by the Learned Counsel, and the settlement, were also put
in and read.
Eleanor Williams, examined by Mr. SHEE—I was form. rly
chambermaid at the Beaufort Arms, at Chepstow, and I am
now in the same capacity at the Rummer Hotel, Bristol. I
remember a lady and gentleman coming to the Beaufort Arms
about two years ago, and they stayed there two nights. There
was only one bed in the room, which they occupied. I came to
London afterwards, and I went to the Queen's Bench prison.
I knocked at a door there, and it was opened by the same gen-
tleman I had seen at the Beaufort Arms. I went the next
morning to the chapel in the prison, and I there saw the same
lady and gentleman together. lam sure they are the same
who were at the Beaufort Arms, and who slept in the same
bed. (The witness then identified the defendant, who was in
court, as the gentleman she referred to. )
Cross-examined by Sergant CHANNELL—The gentleman
and lady went away in a post-chaise. Did not know what had
become of the post-boy who drove them. A gentleman came
to her at Bristol to make inquiries about this matter, and at his
request she came to London. A lady accompanied the gentle-
man. She did not know his name. A lady named Baynton
wrote to her to come to London.
Cross-examination continued—Upon my oath I do not know
his name. I don't know whether I have seen the same gentle-
man in Croydon. I don't know whether Mrs. Banton is here,
hut she came with me from London. Mrs. Baynton's is a
large house, but I don't know how many bedrooms there are
in it. I went to the prison on the morning after I got to Lon-
don. A gentleman named Screninger went with me.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL here said he should wish to ask
whether Mr. Cooke was in Court ?
The question was put to the witness Corfield, and he said Mr.
Cooke was in Croydon, but he did not know whether he was
in Court,
Sergeant CHANNELL said he should wish Mr. Cooke to be
present, to see if the witness could identify him.
Sergeant SHEE said Mr. Cooke ought not to be put to the
annoyance of coining forward.
Chief Justice TINDAL said the Learned Counsel would use
his own discretion.
Cross-examination continued—l swear Ido not know the
name of the gentleman who brought me into Court this morn-
ing. It was the same gentleman who came to me at Bristol.
1 don't know what business is carried on by Mrs. Baynton. She
paid my fare back to Bristol.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE here said he thought it right to state
that he had sent for Mr. Cooke. At present he could not be
found, but he should be produced in the course of the trial.
Mr. CLARKSON—You have sent for him where you knew
he was not to be found,
Mr. Sergeant SHEE—It is not so. He shall be produced.
The cross-examination then proceeded. —Mrs. Baynton still
lives in the same house in Seymour-street which she occupied
when I first came to town. There are several gentlemen in the
habit of going in and out of the house, but I have not seen any
of those gentlemen in Croydon. No one has ever shown me a
picture or the portrait of any gentleman.
Airs. Elizabeth Russell, examined by Mr. JAMES—I am a
married woman: My husband is a gentleman's servant. We
both entered defendant's service in April, 1843. I was engaged
as cook and general servant. There were no other servants in
the house at the time. Miss Wetherell had been married, and
was living apart from her husband. The defendant and his
daughter used to go backwards and forwards from Byfield. Mv
husband had orders not to allow Mr. Cooke to come into
the house. The bedrooms occupied by the defendant and
his daughter were adjoining to each other, and the doors were
quite close. There was a dressing-room between the two
bedrooms. After I had been in the service a week, I saw the
defendant come out of his daughter's bedroom two mornings
running, at half-past five o'clock. He had only his dres•i; g-
gown on. On the first morning he had just opened Mrs.
Cooke's door to come out, and he faced me as I was coming
down stairs. When he saw me he leaned back, and then came
forward. We did not speak to each other. On the second
morning I saw the defendant just as he was going into his own
room, and he had nothing but his dressing-gown on. On the
evening before one of these mornings the defendant had g ,ne
out, and Mrs. Cooke told us we need not sit up, for she would
sit up for her papa. I was in the habit of taking up the
breakfast to Mrs. Cooke in bed, and she used to tell ma to
knock at her bedroom door, and if she did not answer, I was to
put it on the table, and I have seen her ge into her father's
bedroom with nothing on but her night dress and a dressing-
gown. I used to take up breakfast for both 'of them, and I
have always found that two persons had partaken of it. It
was my duty to make the beds, but when I first went
Mrs. Cooke told me that her father always made his own bed,
and I used to make her's for her. My husband used to help
me to make the beds. From what I had seen I had suspi-
cions, and the appearance of the bed of the defendant's
daughter always led Inc to believe that two. persons slept
in it. The witness then spoke to other matters that are not 1
of a character to be detailed. The witness proceeded. Airs.
Cooke used to pack up the bed linen herself, and I used to
think it was very strange conduct, as ladies generally allowed
their servants to do such things. Mrs. Cooke always used to
lock up her dressing-gown and her night-gown, and I never
saw them. I never saw her night-gown off her person,
and I used to wonder and look about fur it. I remember the
defendant and his daughter going away in August, 1843. Mrs.
Cooke was very stout. I could not get her dresses together,
and she used to say ker papa should dress her if I could not do
it without tearing her clothes. I heard Mr. Wetherell about
the same time say that when she went into the country she
would get much thinner, and I was to tell the dressmaker not
to make her dresses so large. I remember upon one occasion
Mr. Wetherell came down into the kitchen one night when they
had come horns from Byfield, and he wanted some hot water to
make something hot for Mrs. Cooke to drink, as she was not well.
I went up with hint with the candle and glass, and I was about to
go into her bedroom, but Mr. Wetherell took the things from me,
and told me I could not come in, as his daughter was in bed, and
he then went in and locked the door. 1 saw Mrs. Cooke the
next morning, and she told me she was quite well, and she had
merely been fatigued. They went away for ten days in the
month
of
whenandpalsAugust,muchthinner,and seemed appeared
was thinner altogether. I asked her if she had not had a
doctor, and she replied that her papa anAdimill.CoSohkee
was always her doctor.
I remember Mrs. Cooke giving me some napkins. There were
appearances on them which induced me to believe she had
miscarried. I never saw a surgeon or a doctor f o any descrip-
tion attend upon Mrs. Cooke. I went with the
to Queen-square, and I saw the plaintif arrested in her sight.
She has told me that she should like to see him transported for
life, and she said she should never be happy until she had done

She and her father arranged with my husband to get Mr.
Cooke token into custody by the constable, and she prevented
tee from interfe ing, saying we were her servants, asset were
boned to do what she wished.
Croce-examined...--I was in the service altogether ab int six
moot s. I noticed Mr. Wetherell coming out of his daiashter's
le &oven about a week after 1 entered the service. I thought
it strange that a daughter of that age should be waited on by
her own father. I suspected all along that Mr. Wetherell was
carrying on a connexion with his own daughter. I told Mr.
Wetherell, after he came home from Queen-square, that I
thought he was acting very unkindly to his son-in-law. He
replied, '° It shall never be ;" and Mrs. Cooke said to me,
" How foolish you are. I should like to see him transported."
I had said that I thought they might have lived happily toge-
ther before ibis was said by the defendant and his daughter.
Ido net know what month it was when this happened. I have
been at No. 29, Upper Seymour-street, Edgeware-road. I
was there about a fortnight ago. I had been subpoenaed,
and I wished to know when I should be wanted. A servant
opened the door, and I saw Mr. Cooke. There was a lady
there, but I have not the pleasure of her acquaintance. Mr.
Cooke lodges at the house, I believe. I don't know how long
he has been lodging there. I have seen Mrs. Baynton, but
I don't know her. I swear I never had any conversation
with her. Mr. Cooke lodges with her. Ido not know who
or what Mrs. Baynton is. I don't recollect the days of the
week when I saw Mr. Wetherell come out of his daughter's
bedroom. I mentioned the circumstance to one or two per-
sons, and I always suspected he and his daughter were living
together as married people. I know that Mr. Wetherell has
been in prison at the suit of Mr. Cooke. I remember that a
cloak and a cap were missed, but I am not aware that my hus-
band was charged by Mr. Wetherell with stealing them. We were
asked about the cloak, and we told him he had taken the cloak
and cap with him when he went into the country. Mr. We-
therell and his daughter did say that the things had been left
in their charge, and they must have taken them or lost them,
and Mrs. Cooke was very angry and said we must abide the
consequences. We left the service some time afterward 4,
but we were not discharged. At the time of the Queen-
square business, Mrs. Cooke told my husband ho might
go and say what he liked about Mrs. Cooke, but she ad-
vised him not to do anything unless Mr. Cooke gave him
101. or 201. Mr. Cooke did give my husband 10/. I swear
that Mr. Cooke has not given me any more money. I was
advised not to take any more money from Mr. Cooke or his
party. I always said that I would not tell anything against
Mr. Wetherell but what I knew to be the truth. I
always felt very uncomfortable at having the money, but still 1
kept it. Mrs. Cooke has frequently told me that she should
be glad to see her husband transported. I used to tell her
that I thought they might have lived happily together, and
she used to turn it off with contempt, and say it never should
be. I have never represented that Mrs. Baynton was to set
me up in business after this trial. Before I was in service I
was in the Magdalen Hospital. I placed myself there. I was
about seventeen years old when I went to the Magdalen. The
witness was then questioned at some length, and she admitted
that she had been leading an immoral life. She was in the
service once of a person named Cox, anJ she left him with a
man, but she did not know his name.
Re-examined—She was five years in the Magdalen, and
since she came out she had lived a virtuous and moral life.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Wetherell were aware that I was going to
receive the 101. from Mr. Cooke, and this was the trap I have
spoken of. Mr. Wetherell wished to borrow some of the 10t.,
but I would not let any husband give him any. I swear that I
expect no money or any benefit from giving nay evidence on
this occasion.
James Russell, examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEE-1 am the
husband of the last witness. We have been married three
years. We entered Mr. Wetherell's service in April, 1843.
We had no regular engagement, but were recommended to
Mr. Wetherell to take care of his house. I have assisted my
wife to make the beds. Mr. Wetherell generally went to bed
about half-past eleven o'clock, and Mrs. Cooke about the same
heur. I have heard the bedroom doors go late in the night,
at all hours, two o'clock, three o'clock, and later. I have
been into Mr. Wetherell's bedroom as early as seven o'clock in
the morning, and have observed that his bed had not been dis-
turbed. When I observed this, I knocked at Mrs. Cooke's bed-
room door, and she always answered me, and then about an
hour afterwards I have seen Mr. Wetherell in his own bed-
room, with nothing on but a dressing-gown, with his legs bare,
and his stockings hanging about them. The witness then
spoke to the appearance of the bed of Mrs. Cooke, and said
that in his opinion two persons had slept in it. The witness
then went on to say that about the time of the business at
the police-office, Mr. Wetherell told him, when he was about
to see Mr. Cooke at his chambers, in Clifford-street, that
he was not to let himself be bought cheap. He did see Mr.
Cooke, and received 101. from him, and when he came
back he told Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Wetherell, and laid the
money on the table. A policeman was there at the time
and he told him to take up the money and mark it, and he
did so. Witness made another appointment with Mr. Cooke
on the following morning, which Mr. Wetherell was aware of,
and Mr. Cooke was then taken into custody. He heard his
wife say that she thought it would be better for them to live
happily, and Mrs. Cooke told her to hold her tongue, and
that all they wanted to do with Mr. Cooke was to get him
transported. Before Mr. Wetherell and his daughter went
into the country she appeared to be very stout, but when she
returned she appeared to be fallen away, and looked very
poorly.
Cross-examined—l and my wife were in service before we
went to live with Mr. Wetherell, and we are now in another
service. I have seen Mr. Cooke at the house of Mrs. Baynton,
in Seymour-street, and she has been present when we were
talking about this matter. She did not sit down and hear
what took place, but merely came into the room for a short
time, to get what she wanted. On a third occasion, when I
went to see Mr. Cooke, she stayed in the room for half an
hour. I generally saw Mrs. Baynton when I went. I don't
know what business she is. I never saw Mr. Baynton, or any
gentleman who passed as Mr. Baynton. Mrs. Baynton is a
woman between thirty and forty. She has no children that I
know of.
Mary Anne Hall, examined by Mr. CHAMBERS —I live in
Hill-street, Dorset-square, and am a washerwoman. I used to
wash for Mr. Wetherell and Mrs. Cooke from the beginning of
April to the latter end of June, 1843. I used to observe that
the flaps of Mr. Wetherell's shirts always came to me washed
out, and apparently with scented soap. The witness then
spoke to the appearances upon the linen of Mrs. Cooke, but
her evidence cannot be detailed. She used to remark that
Mrs. Cooke was one of the most " delicatest" of ladies that
ever she had to do for, because she always washed her papa's

linen.
Dr. Charles James Cox, the physician to the General Dis
pensary, and also in extensive practice as an accoucheur, was
then called and examined. To questions put to him by Mr.
James, he expressed an opinion that the appearances deposed
to by some of the witnesses denoted a miscarriage. He did
not, however, speak with positive certainty.
Mr. Robert Shoot, also a surgeon arid accoucheur, gave a
similar testimony.
Margaret Langridge deposed that she was in the service of
the defendant and Mrs. Cooke in 1813. Witness acted as
upper housemaid. While she was in the service she used to
notice the conduct of Mr. Wetherell towards his daughter, and
particularly the manner in which he embraced her. She had
seen the defendant come out of his room undressed, and knock
at Mrs. Cooke's door, and when she came out he would kiss her
in such an indecent manner that witness had turned away
ashamed. They had neither of them anything more on than a
night dress and dressing gown. She had seen this take place
several times. Witness bad repeatedly seen the defendant co
into his daughter's bedroom, and witness had gone to bed 'eats' •
ing him in the room, both of them at the time having nothing
hut their dressing gowns on. Upon one occasion when witness
NVI3 with them at 11)fi Ad Mrs. Cooke went out of her bedroom,
and told her she was going to her papa, and she was away for
three hours. At this time witness was sleeping with Mrs.
Cooke. She was undressed when she went away. She re-
membered Mr. Cooke coming to see his wife when she was
staving at Mivart's Hotel, and Mr. Wetherell and a French
waiter pushed him out of the house.
Cross-examined—The embracing she referred to took place
in 184?. ; that was before the marriage took place. The going
into the bedroom was also before the marriage. Witness
assisted in the marriage with Mr. Cooke, and she packed up
Miss Wetherell's things and sent them to Mr. Cooke's house on
the day before they were married. Mr. Wetherell did not
know anything about the marriage taking place. When Mr.
and Mrs. Cooke went to town together from Byfield, witness
accompanied them. They occupied apartments in Welbeck-
street, and he sometimes stayed out very late at night. lie
eventually left Mrs. Cooke al,ogether, and in the coarse of a
few day. she returned home to her father.
By Mr. CHAMBERS—Mr. Cooke tried several times to be
reconciled to his wife after th.s occurred.
Elizabeth Revel, wife of Mr. Wetherell's coachman at
Byfield, deposed that after. Mr. Wetherell's marriage she
and her father used occasionally to come to Byfield. Her
attention was attracted to Miss Wetherell's bed by another
servant, and in her opinion it had the appearance of two
persons having been in it. She likewise said that between
three and four o'clock in the morning she had seen the de-
fendant go into his daughter's bedroom and remain there for
twenty minutes. The witness likewise said that since the
action had been brought she had seen the defendant in the
Queen's Bench Prison, and he asked her some questions, when
she told him what she had seen respecting the bed, and he
remarked that the best thing witness could do would be to go
out of the way. She also said that he did not mind what
Russell and his wife said, but he was afraid of witness. He
asked some further questions about the evidence, and when she
told him what Mrs. 11111 was to prove about the linen, he
rubbed his face and turned quite crimson.
Cross-examined—Her evidence had been taken down in
writing, and she was sworn as to its truth. She had been told
that more had been put into her affidavit than she really stated,
but upon hearing it read over, she found it was not the case.
Sic would not swear that Mr. Wetherell did not say it
was all a conspiracy to ruin him and his daughter. She
had so much to think of she could not recollect every-
thing. Mr. Wetherell owed her husband 701., but she did not
say to him when she went to see him, that if he would pay her
she would go away the next day.i She did say, " Pay me the
money, and I'll go to-morrow.•
Mr. JAMES here tendered the sworn statement of the
witness as evidence to prove that she had now told the same
story.
Sergeant CHANNELL objected.
Chief Justice Throat. ruled that it was not admissible. It
was a most extraordinary course to cause a witness to swear to
the truth of the evidence he would have to depose to.
Evidence was then adduced, to show that the defendant
went into the country with his daughter, he gave directions
that all his letters should he enclosed in an envelope ad-
dressed to T. C. Mills, Esq., and it was proved that letters,
so addressed, were sent to him at Gloucester, Monmouth, and
Chepstow.
This closed the plaintiff's case, and the further proceedings
were then adjourned.

WES TEI? IV CI IWU IT.—Devises, August 13.
CROWN COURT—(Before Mr. Baron PL+►TT.)
Ruth Felhum was charged with stabbing and wounding
Mary Barter, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.
Verdict—Guilty of a common a,sult, and she was sentenced
to three months' hard labour.

August 14.
(Before Mr. Justice EILLE.)
The indictment chareed the prisoner, under the name of
George Woodford, with the wilful murder of Elizabeth
Woolfurd, by casting or throwing her into the water, by which
she wa3 choked, suffocated, and drowned. There was a second
count charging the murder to be of a woman to the jurors
unknown. The short narrative of the facts of the case, as
stated by counsel and proved in evidence, is as follows :
The prisoner, who was a showman, and travelled about the
country with a learned pig, came to Salisbury on the sth
of Marcia last, with his two daughters (one aged 14, and the
other 19), and took a bedroom at the White Lion Inn, in Toy-
s'rect. The next day his wife, Elizabeth Woolford, came and
joined him there, bringing with her a boy named Elijah, aged ten
years, who was their youngest child. The reason of their not
coming together seemed to be that his son had left
him some time before, and the mother had been to Southamp-
ton to fetch him. They appeared to be in a state of great
poverty, and they all slept in one room, the man and his two
daughters on a bed, and the woman and the child on the floor,
on a bed made up there. The man got what money he could
for the family by taking the pig round the country for exhibi-
tion, with him a drum and bugle. They remained at
the White havingWhiteion until the 16th of March without anything par-
ticular occurring, but from the evidence it appeared that the
woman was in low spirits, and appeared much dejected. On
the evening of the 16th of March, which was Palm Sunday,
the prisoner left the house at about seven, and said he was
going to the post-office. At this time the deceased and her

:wo danehters were in the tap-room of the inn, where they
had been dtinki tea. The little toy. however, had again
shseoteted from them, which seemed to have hid a great
effect en the spirits of his mother. About ten minutes after
:he prisoner loft the house the woman Eliz ibeth Weoltord
also lett the room, and it is supposed the house immediately
after, but no one saw her after she !eft the room in which
hey had been sitting. When she lett the room she had
no bonnet on. She never again returned to the house.
Just before eight o'clock the same evening, a woman in dark
clothes, with a red shawl and dark bonnet, and answering the
description of the deceased, was seen by two women who were
walking along the road leading to Salisbury from Loverstock.
Loverstcck, it appears, is a village near Salisbury, where
there is a river called the Liffy, over which there is a bridge
called Loverstock-bridge. The woman was near a place
called Milford Hollow, and was going in a direction to the
bridge. When seen by the witness she appeared to be crying,
running fast, and looking behind her apparently much
frightened. As they got on about sixty yards, they met a man
whom they identified as being the prisoner; and as he passed
them he was going in the same direction as the woman. and
was heard to mutter, "I be d---d if Ido not do it." About
twenty minutes after this the prisoner was again seen
looking over Loverstock-bridge into the water. This was
about twenty-five minutes past eight. At a quarter before
nine he went into the tap-room of Clarke's brewery in
Salisbury, and had some beer and smoked his pipe, when he
left and went to the White Lion, where his family were left.
When he got there he was asked if he had seen his wife.
He said, " No, for he should not wonder if the old fool had
hung or drowned herself, as she had often threatened to do."
He then went back to Clarke's brewery, and asked for a half-
pint of beer. He then said to a man called Mitzhell;-who was
sitting in the room, " When I went from here I went direct
to Newman's (the landlorc: of the White Lion), and saw my
children by the fire, comfortable, but not their mother, and
they told me they did not know where she was." He then said
that he went up stairs, but could not find her, although her
bonnet and shawl were left in the room, therefore she could
not be gone far; that he had been to look for her, but could not
find her. He stayed there until near eleven o'clock, and then
returned to the White Lion, and knocked at the door. The
landlord opened it, and asked him where he had been so late ?
He said, " Looking after my b— of a wife, who, I suppose, is
drowned." Nothing more was seen of the poor woman until
the 9:h of April, when the body of a woman, which was
clearly identified to be that of Elizabeth Woolford, was
found' in the river Liffy, about two hundred yards below
Loverstock-bridge. She had no honnet or shaCel on when
found, but a bonnet and shawl, which were identified to be
hers, were found in the water near the place where she was
found, but higher up the river. No marks of violence of
any kind were found on the body, which presented the ordi-
nary appearance of a drowned person who had been a long time
in the water. Upon a coroner's inquest being held, the pri-
soner was apprehended at a village some miles from Salisbury,
he having left that place with his family for some time. Seve-
ral witnesses were called to prove statements made to them by
the prisoner after the poor woman was missing, but they were
all to the effect that he had been looking for his wife, but
could not find her, and that he believed that she had either
drowned or hung herself, and that he was sure he should not
see her again. One witness, however, who was called to prove
a statement of this kind, proved a very material fact for the
prisoner, which was, that on the 12th of March the deceased
woman, whom he had known for some years, had called on
him in Salisbury, and on his remarking to her that she was
much altered and looked nervous, she said, " I have had a
deal of trouble of late, more than I can bear. I am sure I
cannot bear it long, but shall either hang or drown myself."
Another witness, the servant at the White Lion, also deposed
that on the morning of the day on which she disappeared, she
(witness) asked the deceased to let her have a chair on which
she was sitting for a short time, to hang some clothes on, where-
upon deceased said. " Pray take it. I shall not trouble this
plane much longer."
The case for the prosecution having closed,
Mr. Justice EttLE summed up the case to the jury with
great perspicuity and minuteness, pointing out to them that
although it might be that the prisoner had not lived ',happily
with his wife, and might, by his ill conduct, have driven her to
commit su'cide, yet it was far from being satisfactorily proved
that in any way he had been the active mover to her death by
violent means ; but that, upon the evidence produced before
them, it was much more probable that she had been driven by
despair and misery to commit suicide. He then read over the
whole of the evidence, and
The jury, after about half an hour's consultation, found the
prisoner Not Guilty.
During the whole of the trial the prisoner maintained the
most perfect self-possession, and repeatedly cross-examined
the witnesses, some of whom he charged with perjury and
with doming there to swear away his life. At one time,
during the examination of the landlord, he became so much
excited that it was with difficulty that the gaoler could pacify
him ; he. walked up and down the dock, exclaiming, " I never
saw the woman that night, on coy soul ! As live, !
by
Ith i te
Almighty, I never cast eyes upon her on the day s
no ue to listen to that man, he is perjured. lam innocent—
innocent—innocent ! He has perjured himself —he has per-
jured himself !" Upon being asked if he would say anything in
his defence, however, he answered quite calmly, " All I have
to say is, that lam innocent of the charge." Upon the ver-
dict of Not Guilty being returned, his fortitude quite gave
way, and he fell bank in a chair in the dock and burst into a fit
of weeping, apparently inconsolable far some time.
This case terminated the business of the assizes.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION. HOUSE.
Mr. Jacob Hawes Casteto was summoned before the
Lard Mayor, for having caused an obstruction at the
corner of Capel-court, which leads to the Stock Ex-
change. The neighbourhood of Capel-cout t has been
for some time crowded in an extreme degree during
business hours by the lower orders of jobbers—bulls,
bears, stags, and lame ducks ; and a police:Lan has been
officiating there every day, in order to enable the
owners of premises on the spot to obtain access to their
own offices, and to clear the way for th- public, who
constantly have to meet with impediments from the ex-
cited speculators. Mr. Corney, the Deputy of the ward,
having b.,en applied to by many of the respectable inha-
bitants, to exerciae his influence in checking so disagree-
able a nuisance, directed that the police should summon
any transgressor of the Sewers Act, and the defendant
was accordingly cited before his Lordship.
Thomas \V rote, policeman No. 24, stated that on the
9th instant, there being a crowd and a complete obstruc-
tion on the Queen's highway, he spoke to a gentleman
who was in conversation with Mr. Castello to move away
from the Q-ieen's highway. Mr. Castello immediately
asked how a common thief-taker, like 'witness, dared to
speak to a gentleman, and threatened to take witness
before the Lord Mayor. As Mr. Castello acted in such
a manner as was calculated to increase rather than dimi-
nish the obstruction, and as frequent complaints had
been made of the annoyance to which the owners of
premises in the vicinity, and passers-by were subjected,
witness was obliged to appeal to the Lord Mayor.
The Lone MAYOR—Is it the public way that was
obstructed ? Witness—Certainly it is.
The LORD MAYOR—Have you any witness to call ?
Witness - -No, my Lord, All those who were about the
place were jobbers, and others interested in Stock Ex-
caan,;e transactions.
Mr. Castello sail he was very well known in the city
of Loudon to be a most respectable man, and he did not
lc-low why he should be deprived of the rights of a free-
born Englishman by a person who belonged to the police
force. For thirty-five years his character as an honour-
able man of business had been known, and he felt that he
ought not to be touched by the hands of a thief-taker ;
and he ce:tainly did express himself in that manner.
He, at the same time, feeling great indignation at such
interference, said that it was his intention to complain to
the Lord Mayor upon the subject ; but, upon cooling, hs
thought it would be as well not to notice it further, and
the summons to answer the complaint of the policeman
was the consequence.
The policeman said he had civilly spoken to the gen-
tleman to move from the spot in which the obstruction
was, and that if Mr. Castello refused, it would be an
example which the rest would follow irnmediatcly, so
that all accommodation tr the public would cease.
Mr. Castello stated that the policeman desired him,
and the geatleman with whom he was talking upon busi-
ness, to move on, and said to him, " flow do I know
that you are a gentleman ?" in a very insolent manner.
" My name," repeated Mr. Castello, " is Jacob Castello.
I am well known as a man of honour ; and it is come to
a pretty pas-,, if a free-born Englishman is to be treated
in such a manner by a common thief-taker."
Mr. Jacobs, merchant, of London-road, stated that
he was conversing with Mr. Castello peaceably, near
Cdpi-court, when the policeman walked up to him,
touched him, and told him to move on. Witness told
the policeman, if he had anything to say to say it, with-
out accompanying the word with the action ; and Mr.
Castello observed that it was hard if gentlemen could
not speak together on the Queen's highway, without
having hands put upon them, or being pulled about by
a policeman. The policeman commented upon that ob-
servation, by saying he did not know whether Mr. Cas-
tello was a gentleman or not.
The policeman stated that Mr. Jacobs had given him
a great deal of trouble at the same place.
The Loan MAYO2—Is there any other witness for
the defence ? Mr. Castello—No, my Lord. I leave
this in your Lordship's hands. I protest against having
my name mixed up with the stags, ;and people of that
description about the Alley. If policemen are to have
such power—if the liberty of the subject is to be abridged
in this manner, I can no longer call myself a free-born
Englishman, but a mere slave, and my friend who is
going to a foreign country must leave England with a
very unfavourable impression of the nature of the free-
dom of which we speak.
DEPUTY CORNEY declared that the nuisance just de-
scribed had reached a most intolerable height, and he
and several gentlemen who had offices and counting-
helloes in the immediate neighbourhooi, bore the warm-
est testimony to the good character and moderate con-
duct of the policeman, who uniformly exhibited proofs of
the mot marked forbearance.
The LORD MAYOR—There is no doubt at all, accord-
ing to the admission of the defendant and his witness,
incl.-pendently of the evidence of the policeman, who we
know here to be an extremely well-conducted man, that
the rage
case the law. has been violated. The consequence
of such transgressions is serious, and the magistracy
must interfere to check the evil, which increases with
of speculation. Mr. Castello is fined 20s. and
c fists.

Mr.. Castello seemed to be surprised at the decision,
for I: had been prmittel to talk upon the boasted pri-
vileges of free born Englishmen without interruption,
and 4:videlitly imagined that his allusion to slavery would
fill his Lordship's mind with abhorrence of the police-
men. "It shall not end here," said he.
Deputy Corney—No ; I will follow it up, depend
upon that.
Mr. Castello—l shall go to Parliament, most certainly,
upon the subject. What are the rights of a free-burn
Englishman. if such things are allowed ? Nothing.
Deputy Corney—l think, my Lord, it will be neces-
sary to put up a board containing a notice of the deter-
mination to clrry the law into effect.
The LORD MAYOR—No; there will be no occasion.
This case and the penalty will, I dare say, become quite
public criouo to render any course of that kind un-
necessary.
Thl defendant paid the penalty, and saying that he
was thankful to, his Lordship, left the Justice-room.
CHARD?. OF MANSLAUGFITER.—A man, named Joseph
Willa ►e Bean, who looked like a labourer, was brought
up, and charged upon the following evidence with having
been the cause of the death of his wife.
Acting-Inspector Teague, No. 410, stated that as he
was on duty on Thursday night he received information