The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BRNCIL-TESTERDAT.

&IMMO IN BANCO.--11170111 LOAD DUMAN, MR. ANTICS PAITUON,
lli Rince COLORING; AND Mi. RIMY Laic.
Tui QUINN e. KINDALL AND OTUZZA.-BDLLLNO •

CADITSILIP.
Ia this ease, which bad been tried at the sittings after
last Hilary Term, it will be recollected that a Mr. Kendall,
• Mrs. Maria Banks, a Mrs. Tinley, and a Mr. Bickle y had
been indicted and found guilty rf being concerned in the
sale of a cadetsoip in the 7Last India Company's service to a
gentleman of the name of Moore. who had originally been
included in the indictment, but had pleaded guilty, and was
afterwards admitted u the chief witness for the prosecution.
It appeared that the cidetabip had been obtained by Mrs.
Hincas, through the interest of Lady Rip .0, and that
the sum of 1,0001. bad been paid by Mr. Moore for the ep-
pcintment, the greater portion of which had been receive d
oy Mrs. Bincks herself. On the 24th of May la- t, Mr. Lush,
on behalf of the detendant Hinkley, had obtained a rule nisi
for the arrest of judgment, and fora new trial, on the ground
that his client had been t- ken by surprise, and that he merely
acted as the attorney betwe,u Mr. Moore anti Mrs. Blocks,
without having • guilty ki.o wledge or participation in the
transaction.
The Attorney-Genital now showed cause against the
rule, and contended that Mr. Hinkley could not have
been taken by surprise on account of Mr. Moore being
a witaess at the trial, inasmuch as some days before
it took plane he had received • notice from the
solicitor for the prosecution calling upon him to produce all
papers and accounts between himself. and Mr. Moore. With
re idea to Mr. Hinkley not being aware of the guilty trans-
action which had taken place between Mr. Moore and Mrs.
Hacks, it appeared that he had been the party who had
received the money for that lady, and bad actually given a
memorandum for it, in which he stated that he re-
ceived it on account of a loan. That statement,
however, although it proved that Mr. Hinkley was
equally guilty with the rest of the defendants, was
manifestly untrue,as no money had been shown to have been
lent by Moore to Mrs. Sivas. Kr. Hinkley, in a letter
which he had written to Mr. Moon, had requested the pay-
ment ut what he called the remaining " one and a half,"
meaning the sum of 1601., the balance due out of the 1,0001.
agreed to be paid by Mr. Moore to Mrs. Mans for procuring
the cuLtabip fur has son ; and that feet showed he c-uld not
be an innocent man.
Sir F. Thedger, Sir F. Kelly, and Mr. Peacock addressed
*noun situ the Attorney-General on behalf of the pro-
suation ; Mr. Wigton', Q.C. of the Chancery bar), Mr.
Clarkson, and Mr. Forsyth also appeared fur the prosecu-
tion, but did not address their lordships.
Mr. &dent She*, or behalf of the defendant Bieklery,
submitted that his client Ind beta surprised by Mr. Moore
being put into the witness hue upon the trial, sod that he
had been isjared by the abs one of Lady Ripen, who could
base given material sold nee for the defence. Toe learned
militant then adverted to the letters of Mr. Bitkley to Mr.
Snore, and contended that chore was nothing from which it
could be interred that he had a guilty knowledge of the
transaction.
Lord Denman, in delivering his judgment, said that Mr.
pickle, had complained that certain witnesses whose names
appeared on the back of the indictment had net been called ;
but it was net shown that they could give any material evi-
dence, with the exception of one of them, whom it was im-
possible to produce. If Mr. Hinkley had merely been en.
gaged to negotiate this matter as a loan, be could have
shown it upon the trial. With regard to the evidence of
Mr. Moore, although he was undoubtedly a guilty party,
et Its believed the testimony that he had given, and it washighly important that people mixed up in improper
treareactiune should know that they might be convicted by
the evidence of an accomplice. He believed the verdict was
aeorrect one, and he was thalami of opinion that the rule
might to be discharged.
The rest of their loedships concurred.
The defendants in Ws ease, we understand, are to be
b7oughtue fovjudgment neat Tuesday. We should state la
oar report that there were two separate transactions with
Yr. Moore, tune:bin the partite were pet on their trial,
and that upon the But traneaction, Kendall, Mrs. Tinley,
and Mrs. Hindu wen found guilty, and that on the second,
Headed), Mrs. Bineks, Gad Mr. Hinkley were found guilty.