The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-19 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. WALKER.
This was an indictment against the defendant, an
a_ttoetiey, at the instance of a person named Clements.
for Obtaining money from him on false pretences. A
true bill, on the evidence of the prosecutor, was found
against the defendant and a person named Paul, and the
Indictment was removed by certiorari into this court.
The case was tried before Lord Denman, and Walker
Was found guilty, Paul being acquitted. It appeared
that Clements had borrowed a sum of money on several
adull harec which he held in a project called the York and
Railway from a client of Walker'e, whose name he
s_aid he was not at liberty to give. Subsequently
Clements found it necessary to bring an action against
the Company for the calls he had paid. It was necessary
that the scrip should be produced, and he applied to
Walker to get his friend to do so. Walker told him
that his friend would not produce them unless
he were paid the principal and interest, and
Clements gave three bills for the interest, two of which
had been paid. The holder of the scrip, a Mr. Tingey,
proved at the trial that he never objected to
produce it at the trial, and never made any conditions
of the kind put forth by Walker. The indictment
charges Walker with having obtained the bills from
Clements for an improper purpose.
The defendant appeared to receive the judgment of
the Court.

Mr. Sergeant Mums moved for a new trial, on
affidavits of Walker and others, which he held went to
show that Walker was not guilty of the offence.
The COURT said they were not disposed to rely upon
the affidavit of Walker, or of a person named Atkin-
son (who was stated to be a material witness), but
before deciding upon the application they would consult
Lord Denman, who tried the case.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

3IORRELL THE ELDER V. FISHER AND ANOTHER.

This was a spacial case remitted for argument to this
court by an order of the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce,
stating the particulars of a demise of land held
under Magdalen College, Gxford. The question in-
volved in the argument was as to the meaning of certain
Words in the lease, and partical Jrly whether two pieces
of land were demised by it, or formed part of a farm
called Whit Farm.
Mr. WILLES addressed the Court at great length in
Support of the plaintiff's case.
The argument, which was exceedingly technical, and
""all , a public interest, was proceeding when cur report
aeft.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court took the new trial paper to-day, but the
elaes heard during the morning were deruid of any
general interest.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)

HARRIS V. AUGUSTUS NEWTON.
Mr. RODGERS applied to the Court for a rule calling
11Pun the defendant to show cause why his discharge
should not be set aside, acd the sum of 104/. los. paid
bY.hien in liquidation of the plaintiff's claim. He moved
upon
affidavit which stated that in July last the de-
lendAnt was arrested fir debt at the euit.of the plaintiff,
and while in custody of the sheriff's officer, in George-
street, I3lackfriars, he was welted upon by the plaintiff
Whom he induced to sign a discharge on the under-
standing that it would not prejudice the claim, and that
OR the following day he would pay hall' the debt and
Solts, and the r(m. ainiog half' by instalmcnie. Now the
defendant being a barrister•at.hov knew full wt.ll that
11 discharge from custody operated cs a discharge Irom
the debt, but he concealed this Tact from the plaintiff,
and as he had failed to pay a fraction of the demand, the
Miff had been margined to wake this application