The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.
STINGS IN MARCO.— Morose LORD LIZNIIAII, MIL Jarricz PAITIERSO
MI. JUMICR COLZRIDOR, AND MIL RUNIC" EEL&

TEN QUEEN O. KENDALL.—BELLING • CADETSHIP.
In this case, which was an indictment which had been
preferred egainst a Mr. Wm. Richard Creed Kendall, a
Mn. Maria Bieck', a Mr. George Bickley, an attorney, and
a Mrs. Violet Linley, for being concern, d in the sale of the
office of • cadetship in the East India Company's Ser-
vice, the parties to-day appeared to receive the judgment
of the court. It may probabiy be in the recollection of our
readers that the indictment charged the defendants with
being concerned in two separate teansactione with a Mr.
Moore, the party who bad paid them the sum of 1,0001. on
account of Mrs. Block's having obtained,for hilSon the sp-
ite intment to a cadetship. The jury found that Mr. Ken-
dall, Mrs. Minas, and Mrs. Linley were concerned in the
first transaction, and that al the rest of the defendants,
wi h the exception of Mrs. Linley, were concerned in the
second.
The defendant, Kendall, now put in affidavits in mitiga-
tion of punishment, and in his own affidavit he stated, as an
extenuation of the offence of which he had been found
guilty, that he had passed a great portion of his life abroad,
and he was therefore not aware that tt was illegal to be con.
eerned in selling it eadetship. It was also sworn in the affi-
davit that the deponent b.liered that the defendant Bickley
i.ad no guilty knowledge of the nature of the transaction in
which he took part.
Mr. Serjsant Shee, on behalf of the defendant Bickley,
addressed the court. He said that, as counsel for Mr.
Bickley, he wished to at ate that after the decision their lora-
ships had given last week upon the application which he
made for a new trial, it was not the intention of his client to
do maything more than submit himself to the mer-
ciful consideration of the court. The defendant
Bickley had been convicted of a guilty complicity
in an act which the legislature had declased, for resigns of
public policy, to be a mieduseencur, but he wished now to
make all the amends in his power by throwing himself
entirely on the mercy of the court. It appeared that the
defendant Mickley was not concerned in the original corrupt
bargain made with Mr. Moore, who had at fiat abandoned
all ideaof the cede ship until one Mrs.Bineks received a pre-
sentation to one from Lady Ripon. So far Mr. Binckley wea
innocent, but his guilt consisted in having assisted Mrs.
Blocks to obtsin coetransation from Mr. Moore for getting
back the money which had been paid to Mr. Kendall as
the first transaction. Mr. Binckley had been amp eyed as
the atterney for Mrs. Bincks to aid in the recovery of
the money, and he now deeply regretted that he
had ever been further mixed up in the matter.
His ell rat had been an attorney of the court foe
20 lean, sad during the whole of that time, with the
Gumption of the present proceeding, no charge had ever been
made against him. Mr. Mickley humbly trusted that, having
bora for so hang a time an attorney of the court, and having
borne an irreproachable character, and also having himse.f
had no part of the money paid for the cadetship, their lord-
ships would consider that the necessity for example was euffi-
dandy satisfied without passing upon bin a sentence of great
severity, by which his professional position would be entirely
destroyed.
Mr. Chambers, on behalf of the defendant, Mrs. Linley,
also addressed the court, and submitted as a reason why
their lordships should pass a mid sentence upon his eller t,
that she had taken but a very slight part in the transaction,
and It appeared that she had merely been the person to bring
Mr. Moore and Mr. Kendall and Mrs. Binks into communi-
cation in the first instance. It had been urged against Mrs.
I Linley that she was a very guilty party because Mr. Moore
had made her a present 01 501. for her exertions in obtaining
the repayment of the money that had been at firs*. pant to
'Kendall, but he submitted that it was a fact which was
greatly in her favour, inasmuch as Mr. Moore had presented
her with the 501. for her praiseworthy conduct in recovering
the mouse which he bad been induced to part with. It was
true that Mrs. Linley had been guilty of great impropriety
and indiscretion in bringing the parties together, but her
subsequent conduct had evinced a desire on her part to
make amends for her former culpability. The jury at the
vial had found his client guilty, after much cossiderstiost
upon the first transaction may, and they seemed to think
that her share in the matter was very slight. He therein*
submitted that hers was not a case In which a defendant
ought to receive heavy psniAment, and he was instructed es
intonn the court that she ha I several children, a separatism
from whom by imprisonment would add mental agony to
the personal di,cnmfort she would be compelled to endure.
The Attorney-Geueral said be was not instructed au
behalf of the East India Company to press the cue
with undue severity against the defendant", but he
conceived that it was the duty of the court to
repress snob a serious offence as that which they
had been found guilty of by awarding a suitable amount of
punishment. He could not perceive that there was any dif-
ferenee in point of moral guilt between the present case and
the late case of Captain Charritie, which was certainly of
great aggravation, inasmuch as there the defendant was an
efficer in the East India Company' service. The Attorney.
General here briefly reviewed the facts of the Case as cum
nested with the first transaction, and went on to say that
with regard to Mrs. Linley, it was clear that she had not
been led to take part in the transaction through indiscretion,
because it had bees proved that when she received the 501.
from Mr. Moore, she wrote a letter acknowledging
the receipt of it, in which she offered to procure
for another son of Mr. Moon's an appointment in India as
assistant surgeon, and it was quite clear that she was not in
any way incautiously led to mix herself up in the matter.
With respect to the defendant, Kendall, he had been con-
victed on the clearest evidence as built" taken part in both
transactions. He now endeavoured to excuse himself by
saying that he was ignorant that he had committed any
offence • but be also said in his affidavit that he believed
Mr. Bickley had no guilty participation in the affair. Now,
Mn. Minks, who was connected with Mr. Mickley from the
beginning to the end of the transaction, had not made any
affidavit exculpating Bickley, therefore he (the Attorney-
General) thought it was anything but a favour-
able circumstance to prove Kendall's innocence
that he should have undertaken to swear that
which Mn. Minks had not done. As to the guilt of that lady
there was not doubt, for it appeared that she was the tarty
who was to obtain the cadetship, and to whom all the per-
sons concerned in the transactionlooked sp. The cue, how-
ever, as affecting Mr. Bickley assumed a very different
want from the others us to the cientemsences which were
likely tortoni.. frogs that personhaving to undergo the eentence
of the court, because no one could tell how he might be pro-
ceeded against hereafter on account of his being an attorney.
It was impossible not to think that Mr. Bickley, as an
afar of the court, had betrayed his trust by taking pert
Yea illegal and improper proceeding. He believed that the
sun amid not kelp being of opiates that all the parties in-
La▪ ud in the indictment were guilty, but they were entirely
their f
or
hands, and whatever sentence they
allot, pass, the Mad India Company, who had only insu-
lated the prosecution because they were bound to do so,
would be satisfied.
Ater their lordships had consulted for some short time,
Mr. Justin Patteson planetaria to deliver the judgment of
the court. His lordship said : William Richard Creed
• Maria Blocks, Violet Ula and George Mickley. you
have allot you been convicted an an indictment in various
forma, singing yea with centspirsey, and two of you have
been convicted on both of the transactionsset forth in the I
Indictment. Yon, Mn. Lialsy, have been found guilty of the
earlier transaction, and you Geo. Nokia, of the seonsiL The
indictment charged yea:with kaspiring to carry imagine a
*erten proposal which had been made to a of the
name of Moon, who was also a defendant and bud pkakell
guilty. That proposal was to get a promatatio• • eadeb
ship far Hoore's sou, and which was to be omlwrd
Ripon, and for which Kendall was to mode, a ma of
money. I do not know that the evidbatent* shame bow the
money was to be divided amongst you, eartabby the
of 1,0001. was to be paid by Mr. Moore. You, Keadall,
have stated in your *Slant that you were not aware that it
was an illegal transaction in which you were concerned.
That is certainly a statement that can hardly be cre-
dited, because the act of parliament making it an
odium to sell or be concerned In the sale ei cadet-
ships, which was pawed some time ego, is very