The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-18 00:00:00

TRIM Rr7l, LOWPOW,

' ZE INTELLIGENCE.
P CUTT.—Croylon, August 5.
(13. f rp i, rd Chief Ju.tice TiNn.u. and a Comm n Jury.)

COOKE V. WETHERELL, CLERK.
:.as an action brought by the plaintiff against the des
relent far criminal conversation with his wife.
The case was of a most extraordinary character, and it is said
that the damages were laid at 50.000/-
Me. Sergeant Stare, Mr. Montagu Chambers, and Mr.
Edwin James were for the plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant Channell,
Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Lush for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SEIZE opened the case, and said that the plain-
tiff was Mr.- John Alynde Cooke, a young man, an attorney,
who was veity respectably connected, being the son of Mr.
Cooke. of Capel Court, Herefordshire, and he came into
CoMtt 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 be' 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
responsibility 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 arid 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 1,1001. a year, and also had a for-
tune of 20,0001. with his wife, who, however, had the con-
trol over that sum, and she settled it upon her daughter, the
lady whose misconduct was that day the subject of their in-
quiry. In 18:39, after her mother's death, the young lady
came of age, and the money was then transferred by the
trustees to her name, and came under her control ; and it
appeared that her father took a splendid mansion in Eaton-
place, 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
p.eased with her person, and he eventually offered her his hand
and was accepted. Mr. Cooke was sincerely attached to the
young lady, but he vrouhl riot deny that he did expect to re-
ceive some fortune with his wile. Her father objected to
the marriage, and the terms of his refusal of Ilr. 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 Mobett
made his appearance, and produced an acceptance of Miss
Wetherell's for 500/., and insisted upon his right to look to
the newly-married husband for payment. The plaintiff was
shocked at the twos, and he felt that he had been cruelly de-
eeived•hot li by his wice and her father. He knew that he was
legally liable fir the ilehts of his wife, and he therefore felt that
it was absolutely necessary for him to know the exact amount
of her :iabiiities and the real position of her affairs. Notwith-
taneing that at this moment the plaintiff felt that he was
- • eitely ruined by the treachery of his wife and father-
„lase, his conduct towards the former appeared to be of the
kindest dessreitien, and he read a letter from his wife to the
plaintiff 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 zonoure, and he felt it only due to himself to insist that
her father sheuel give an account of his steward-hip, and that
he seould grant him an interview for that purpose. This took
place, and the defendant then admitted that he had wasted his
daughter's torture, and that she had nothing left, arid that
the turniiure, houses, and everything they had, had been
made over by a hilt ot sale or warrant of attorney to different
pa; ties whe had ado-need money upon them. From this
time Mr. Wi thereli offered him every obstruction and oppo-
se on in obteireeg his rights, and his wife invariably took
th • part of her father in resisting his wishes. After having
coluly and unwillingly accompanied her husband to London
from Byfield, she eventually returned to her father, and
although the pleireiff repeatedly, in the most earnest and
affectionate manner, entreated her to return to him, she in-
variably refused and treated him with the utmost coldness and
unkindness, and he believed he (Mr. Sergeant Shee) should be
ab'e to show that the defendant had made the must shameful
charges against her husband, and he in time succeeded in en-
tirely alienating her affections from him. There was, in fact,
a total abseece of everything like that kind of feeling which
would be expected to animate the breast of a young woman of
six-and-twenty towards a man to whom she had been married
only two months —( The Learned Sergeant here read some
letters that had passed between the Parties confirmatory of his
statement.) Air. Cooke at length was compelled to take pro-
ceediegs in Chancery, and eventually a deed was executed
by whiol the defendant admitted that he was indebted to
his d iughter in a sum of 1t3,0001., 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 Alr. Cooke had acted in a perfectly disinterested
manner, he did not take any interest under the deed, but the
whole amount was pieced under the control and appointment
of his wife. Imeiediately after this deed was executed, the
defetelaiit wrote a letter to Mr. Cooke, forbidding him his
e, or thorn having any intercourse with his wife. The
Learned Serge •nt then referred to some other proceedings
that had taken place, and said that all along the plaintiff's wife
bad evinced the utmost hostility to him, and opposed him in
every proceeding he a lopted. The plaintiff could not account
for such 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
made against the defendant. The parties who gave the infor-
mation were person~ of humble station certainly, but he believed
of unblemished character, aid the result of the inquiries made by
Air Cooke through their information left nodeubt upon his mind
that t disfeedaat nad been guil• yof the dreadful crimes ot incest
and adultery. He should call before the jury the servants in the
house in Eaton-square, and they would prove that they bid always
entertained a suspicion of the character of the intimacy between
the defendant and his daughter, and that, having watched,
they were satisfied that they were in the habit of continually
sleeping together es man and wife, and he should also prove
that the detendent was seen at all hours of the night in his
daughter*: bedroom. The Learned Sergeant then stated other
facts retail .g• to the appearance of the bed of the plaintiff's
wife, which need not be further alluded to, but the effect of
which, hi, said. was to satisfy all the servants that a most im-
proper intercourse was being carried on. He likewise said he
should he able to ;move that the defendant hart been repeatedly
seen In his (hole-titer's bedroom, nearly naked, and she in the same
state. This Was at 'he house in Eaton-square, and he said he
should he able to show that sinatlar proceedings took place
at IA; field, and thst there the same suspicions were
entertalned. The Learned :Sergeant then proceeded to
state that he should prove that suspicion having been
entertained that 'Alm Cooke was in the family way, from her
stout ateetarene other indications, she had gone Into the
country whit hi r father, and upon her return there were all the
the inneations of a miscarriage having taken place. He then
weer. on to see that lie should prove that the defendants went
upon a c.nitary ex sedition together, and he should show that at
heaufert.fines, at Chepstow, they slept together as man
ie. A!' er eoueusratiug other circumstances, the Learned
Sergeant conclule,t a very able address by observing, that to
talk of the am-aunt 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 of damages too large. or that any sum
could be a sufficient reparation to the plaintiff for the cruel in-
''ury he hail received.
The following evidence was then adduced :
Air. Win. Ilastings Reeile, examined by Dlr. CHAMBERS—I
know the plaintiff in this action, and was present at his mar-
riage with Miss Wetherell. I produce the cbpy of the certificate
of the marriage ou the 25th of September, 1842, at St.
Geur,Cs, Hanover-square.
The certificate was put in and read. The name of the de-
ferehmt's daughter was wrongly described in the certificate as
Mary Emily instead of Mary Elisa.
Examinatien continued—Shortly after the marriage I called
upon the defendant at Mivart's 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.
tune had been expended in eercha,,ing furniture for the house
in Eaton-square and at Byfield. The defendant mentioned
eminething to me about an accommodation bill for 5501., and
which his daughter had accepted for him, and added that it was
secured eh her by a warrant of attorney or a bill of sale. I
called a sec, nd time, when I met Mr. Nisbet, his solicitor, and
be then said that by advice he must decline entering further
into particular;. 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
think Mrs. Cooke also. to take possession of the house in
Eaton-place, and I c'illed there the same evening with Mr.
Cooke. This defendant and Mr. Nisbet, his attorney, came to
the house while we were there. They rang the: bell, and de-
manded 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 of 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 ceralt site what took place inside the house,
although I was not admitted. There was an angry discussion,
and Mr. Cooke said he came to demand his wife, and he was
anxious she should accompany him back to London. Wit.
mess heard her voice. and afterwards saw her. She seemed
to take part with her father, and spoke very angrily to her
thoughtsb.
it i
better she n consequence of which Mr. Cooke sa,d he
should not go with him. He then de-
manded to be let out, and after some farther angry words
be came out of the house and joined us, and we then all re-
turned to Weedon, about ten or eleven miles from Byfield,
and Mr. Cooke appeared to be suffering extreme anguish of
mind, and seemed to be still anxious to take his wife back
to Landon. 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-
sage 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. Cooke 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 Loudon I had opportunities of observin.4. their con-
-duct, and freqnently saw them together. I was anxious to ob-
tain information from Mrs. Cooke relative to her property,
but I did not 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
!wry severely from what had taken place, and he was so much
excited on some occasions, that I deemed it prudent to remain
with him. Mr. Cooke was twenty-three or twenty-four years
olcrwhen 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 Mr. Cooke when
living on his own estate. It is not art 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
Brother. Cooke introduced me to Mr. Waddy, and we were
all pretty intimate. I did not know Miss Wetherell until
the day she became Mn.s Cooke. No one was present at the
arriage but myself, Mr. Waddy, Captain Godsell, and Mr.
Cooke. It was a runaway marriage. Captain Godsell and
Alr. Waddy met us at the church. Mr. Waddy did not lend
Cooke any money on that occasion. After the marriage

almost

and vc

we au trrr.,4k.tasre at the !itun,Wr k Hotel, Lod Mr. and air-.
Cooke went into the country by the South-Eastern Rairoa‘
They returned, and passed through London, on their was to
Ryfield, about a week afterwards. Mr. ( ooke stayed at 13y8e1d
two or three daas, and the :orn:er their returned to Lon a;n.
having Mrs. C.ooke at Byfield. Mr. Wetherell wa- at .los
time staying at Mivart's Hotel, and when I saw him and in-
quired after his daughter's property, he said that he and hi,
daughter had been living extravagantly, and that it was nearly
all spent. Mr. Wetherell gave me a letter for Mr. Cooke,
which I handed over to that gentleman, and I have seen that
letter since. On the second occasion, Mr. Wetherell said he
saw there was a hostile feeling, and he should decline
making any further communication. I cannot say whether
Mr. Waddy was present when we took possession of the
house in Eaton-place. We took possession of the house be-
tween seven and eight o'clock in the evening, but I do not
know whether Mr. Cooke remained there all night. We were
at the window when Mr. Wetherell came and endeavoured to
obtain admittance, but we did not laugh at him. We (lid not
do anything improper or offensive towards Mr. Wetherell. I
cannot recollect whether a dinner had been ordered that day
in the house, but I will not swear there was not. I did not
dine there. Ido not know whether Mr. Waddy or Capt. God-
sell were in the house. We were at the magistrate's office the
next morning by ten o'clock, and we all started for Byfield the
same evening. Capt. Godsell did not accompany us. Mr.
Cooke was not admitted immediately ; and I myself never asked
or attempted to get in. Mr. Wetherell did say eventually that
if Mr. Cooke came alone he should be admitted, and, when he
went in, I and Mr. Waddy remained outside. I could hear
what Mr. Cooke said as well as Mr. Wetherell. 1 heard no-
thing about a poker. lam a bill discounter by profession, arid
have had a good deal to do with Mr. Cooke and Mr. Stratford
on the subject of bills. Mr. Cooke owes me money; at least,
lam upon his schedule in the Court of Bankruptcy. I owed
him money before his marriage, but he is now my debtor to
the extent of 6001. or 7001. I never supplied cards for Strut-
ford and Mr. Cooke to play together. Cooke and Stratford
have known each other a good many years.
Re-examined—Mr. Cooke's wife's liabilities were pressed
upon him. Mr. Cooke his 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. Corfield 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, 1842. 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 belt' 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 bad 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. Mr.
Cooke then came into the room, and after some strong language
it was arranged that they should proceed to Mivart's Hotel,
but they did not see Mr. Mivart, so that no further explana-
tion took place. Another appointment was made
but Mr. Wetherell did not attend. It was quite false that
I 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 dis-
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. CLA RKSON—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 5501. 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•
treated it. She did not appear to be serious, and seemed
anxious to return to her husband, hut 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. CLARKsort—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 ✓0,0001., and that she came of age in
1839, was then put in and read. The ♦arious letters referred
to by the Learned Counsel, and the settlement, were also put
in and read.

Eleanor Williams, examined by Mr. SHEE—I was formerly
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 tie 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-exarninvd 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 teen the same gentle..
man in Croydon. I don't know whether Airs. Baynton 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 tilt• morning after 1 got to Lon-
don. A gentleman named Sereninger 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
prevent, to see if the witness could identify him.
Sergeant SHEE said Mr. Cooke ought not to be put to the
annoyance of coming forward.
Chief Justice TINDAL said the Learned Counsel would use
his own discretion.

Cross-examination continued—l swear I do 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 Smelt here said he thought it right to state
thr.t 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 Stise—lt 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.
Mrs. 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. My
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 bad 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 dressing-
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
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 me to
k cock at her bedroom door, and if she did not answer, I was to
put it on the table, and I have seen her go into her father's
b eiroom with nothing on hut 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 me to believe that two persons slept
in it. The witness then spoke to other matters that are not
of a character to be detailed. The witness proceeded. Mrs.
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 for 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 her 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 hems 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 him with the candle and glass, and I was about t .
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. I 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 August, and when they came back Mrs. Cooke
appeared much thinner, and seemed very pale and ill. She
was thinner altogether. I asked her if she had not had a
doctor, and she replied that her papa was always her doctor.
I remember Mrs. Cooke giving me some napkins. There were
appearances on themwhich induced me to believe she had
miscarried. I never saw a surgeon (;7"adoctor of any descrip-
tion attend upon Mrs. Cooke. I went with the '''fr"ife
to Queen-square, and I saw the plaintiff arrestedPinite; 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

it. !-lie and her lather arranged with my husband get Mr.
Cooke taken into custody by the constable, and she prevented
tee from interfei ing, saying we were her servants, and were
bound to do what she wished.
Cross, examined—l was in the service altogether abont six
months. I noticed Mr. Wetherell corning out of his daughter'.
droem about a week after I entered the service. I thought
it strange that a daughter of that age should he 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 be 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 this was said by the defendant and his daughter.
Ido not 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. Boynton, but
I don't know her. I swear I never bad any conversation
with her. Mr. Cooke lodges with her. Ido not know who
cr 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-
son., 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 he 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 I
kept it. Mrs. Cooke has frequently told me that she should
he 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, and 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.
Mr'. Cooke and Mr. Wetherell were aware that I was going to
receive the 10/. from Mr. Cooke, and this was the trap I have
spoken of. Mr. Wetherell wished to borrow some of the 10/..
hut I would not let my husband give him any. I swear that I
expect no money or any benefit from giving my evidence on
this occasion. _ _

James Russell, examined by Mr. Sergeant SR KE-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
hour. 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 ovvn 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 10/. 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--I 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 ;seen present when we were
talking about this matter. She did not sit down and hear
what tock 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. Boynton, 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-s•reet, 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
spoks 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

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.
Jitees, 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 and accoucheur, gave a
similar testimony.
Margaret Langridge deposed that she was in the service of
the defendant and Airs. 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 had repeatedly seen the defendant go
into his daughter's bedroom, and witness had gone to bed leay.
ing him in the room, both of them at the time having nothing
but their dressing gowns on. Upon one occasion when witness
was with them at By fi 11(1 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
staying 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 1842 ; 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 13yfield, witness
accompanied them. They occupied apartments in Welbeck-
street, and he sometimes stayed out very late at night. He
eventually left Mrs. Cooke al ogether. and in the course of a
few (lays she returned home to her father.
By Mr. CHAMBERS-Mr. Cooke tried several times to be
reconciled to his wife after this occurred.

Elie tbeth Revel, wife of Mr. Wetherell's coachman at
B) field, 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, acd 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 ker some questions, when
she told him
.wt
hheast
hbseehs et
also
thadthing
insgaseen
at
nhreaestasp eheceot
could
nl
dg
diddt
ohneowt
ibn ,nbdaen
wtdohghaoet
outrem oafrktVetwhaayt
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. Hall 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 affidasit than she really stated,
but upon hearing it read over, she found it was not the case.
Sae would nut swear that Mr. Wetherell did not say it
was all a conspiracy to ruin him and his daughter. She
hail 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. She did say, " Pay me the
mon.y, 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 CIIA N NELL objected.
Chief Justice TINDAL 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-
dre;sed 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.