The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-07-26 00:00:00

Ile repeated, that the Plaintiff was entitled to a ver-
dict, bet not to such damages as would seriously
affect the D.fendant, against whom another action
might be brought by Miss Cooke : and it had been
proved that he was not worth more than 6001.
Mr. TACINTOX, in reply, observed, that the at.
tack made by the other side on the reputation of Miss
Cooke, was the most unfounded, the most enjasti.
and the most villainous attempt that he had
ever known,, in the course of his experience of cZU
years, to blacken and Here the character of any in-
dividual. (Mr. Jervis here rose,and said that this was
not to be endured.) Mr. Taunton declared, that be
meant nothing personal to his Learned Friends on
the other side, nor to the respectable attorney who
had instructed them: his observations were applied
only to that brazen baggage, Mary Taylor. It had
been said that this woman bad not a shadow of in-
terest to away hers did the Jury then forget what
the Defendant had said when the Plaintiff called
open him to fulfil his promise, end repair the injury
he had done? What did the Defendant then say ?
" My money will go as far as his in a Court of Jars-
rice ;" and could it be disabled bow it had gone to-
day, when they beard the evidence of that infamous
witness? Bet there were other metivea, besides
pecuniary reward, to sway the human breast. There
was pride, there was malice; and it must not be
forgotten lb.! this woman was a dis aided I ;
discarthd too. for great impropriety of conduct. The
behaviour of the Defendant himself was the best an-
swer to the wicked story of Mary Taylor. It wee
true that Mu. Middleton was with Miss Cooke for
five mingles in bee bed-room, end it was from this
occurrence that that artful woman bad invented, or
bees prevailed upon to make, the digesting state-
ment which had boon beard. Mr. Middleton had
himself communicated the circumstance to the De-
fendant ; was he saeirfied with it nr not ? That was the
question. Did the Defendant believe that the parties
had been surprised !n that indecent situation which
had been described ? This was supposed to have
taken place at Michaelmas, 1817 ;and the Defendant
went on making the same assurances of borsourable
attachment as formerly, without the most distant
allesinn, either verbally or in writing, that the ob.
jest of his affections had forfeited all claim to his
attachment by the impropriety of her conduct.—
Long after this, es the Jury bad heard, be bail de-
clared that he loved her better than any other wo-
man, and assured her that be would mike her his
wife. Nay, long after the Plaintiff had abandoned
1111 hope that the Defendant would repair the injury
he bed done, long after the present action bad heee
brought, the Defendant never insinuated that he
would not NMI his engagements, on account of
what bed passed between Mr. Middleton end his
eossin. Let the Jory remember the manner is which
Mary Taylor had given lint evidence--the long
pews which she made- the confusion of bee looks—
land her solemn declarations that she did not ender-
eland the plainest pcs:ible questiool. If the De-
lentlest could hring forward such a witness as this
to WU her infamous story today, what must have
be,. the base arts by which he triompbed over the
*Wes of this poor girl ? The Jury would judge
what they did not see by whet they had sees. Let
thew, then, pity the Plaintiff; let them feel for him
es
s father, as they would feel for themselves, and
give him such a verdict as the aggravated circum-
stances of the case required.
Mr. Justice RICIIARMON summed op the ease.—
Re told the Jury that this was not en action by the
daughter for a breach of promise of marriage, which
eke might still bring, bet en action by the father for
Ike injury which he had sustained. Whatever they
might think of some parts of the evidence (and it was
fur thou to judge of the whole), the Plaintiff was at
101 l events entitled to their verdict. In estimating the
damages, they were not merely to consider the loss
of personal service ; they might take into their tem-
perate consideration the injery to a father's feelings
by the alienation of a daughter's affections from him,
and of his from her by this kind occurrence. But
they were not to give way to the full influence of
their feelings, as the Learned Coen'sl for the Plain-
tiff had asked them to do; they were to be governed
by their •nderstandines, not by their hearts, dissi-
{tithing the damages if they believed the young we.
man to base been guilty of a criminal intercourse
wi h her cousin. They were also to take into consi-
deration the situation and prospects in life of the
Defendant, sad not to give sects damages as, in the
event another action by the daoghter, might prove his
total ruin.
The Joey deliberated few • long lime, and then
gave a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 1501.