The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-01 00:00:00

ME SUN, LoINLON, FilloAy EVENING, F

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH".
(Sittings in Error.)
TARNER V. WALKEE.-THE CORNHILL BURGLARY.

The hearing of the point of law reserved by the judge
who tried the case at Guildhall was resumed this morning
before the seven judges sitting in error. The plaintiff in
the case was a tradesman, formerly carrying on the busi-
ness of a watchmaker in Wilderness-row, and the defen-
dant was the watchmaker whose premises were burgla-
riously broken open and robbed to an alarming extent by
the gang of burglars, headed by two men named Scotty
and Caseley. A large reward was offered by Walker for
the discovery of the thieves and the restoration of the pro-
perty, and the plaintiff claimed to be the person who was
entitled to the whole of the reward in consequence of
certain information given by him to the police.
The defendant denied that the information given
by the plaintiff was that which led to the apprehension
of the thieves, whereupJu an action was brought by the
plaintiff against the defendant for the amount of the re-
ward, and the per centage upon the value of the property
recovered. At the trial which took place at Guildhall evi-
dence was given to show that the police acted on informa-
tion received from othot persons and not horn the plaintiff,
but the plaintiff alleged that he was the first person who
gave the police any positive information IN hich led to the
apprehension, and therefore he was entitled to the reward.
The plaintiff's case was that, some time after the robbery,
a man named Roberts entered the plaintiff's shop,
and producing a watch, asked the plaintiff to make
certain repairs. The plaintiff, on a close examination of
the watch, found marks on the name plate of the watch,
which led him to believe that the name of Walker had
been filed out, and, acting on that suspicion, he took the
watch and told the man to call for it the next day. Im-
mediately after this tho plaintiff gave information to the
police, and the next day the police attended and remained
in waiting in the plaintiff's parlour until Roberts arrived,
;when he was apprehended,. and- two other watches,
found to be a portion of the property stolen from Cornhill,
found ou his person. Roberts was taken before the presiding
magistrate at the Mansion-house, where, having undergone
an examinatiou, he was removed to Newgate. ' Whilst
there Roberts sent for the police,' and then gave more
information; in fact, he what is vttlgarly termed "split,"
and very shortly afterwards the burglars_ were appre-
hended, with a largo quantity of the property on them, in
the Whitechapel-road, in a house of one of themwas about
to open as an eel-pie shop. They 'were tried, convicted,
and sentenced to a long term of p3nal servitude, and then
the plaintiff set up his claim to the reward. The defendant
denied that the information given by Tamer was that
which led to the apprehension of the thieves, but that
the information given by Roberts to the police, whilst he
was in prison, was the actual thing that enabled the offi-
cers to capture the burglars. The defendant did not ob-
ject to pay a small proportion of the reward to the plain-
tiff,
but he refused such an arrangement, and brought
his action. A 'verdict was given for the plaintiff
on ...the ground that his information " led to"
according to the terms of the bill offering the
reward, the apprehension of the thieves. A rule
was afterwards moved for and obtained in the Court of
Queen's Bench, sitting at Westminster, to set aside the
verdict on the ground that the information given by the
plaintiff was too remote, but ou the close of the arguments
it was discharged, but leave was given to the defendant to
raise the question in the Court of Error, as to whether or
no the remoteness of the information disentitlod him to
the reward.

Mr. Mellish, at groat length, argued that the informa-
tion which enabled the police to apprehend the burglars
was that given by Roberts, and not that received from
Tamer. Roberts when in prison, thinkii.g that his
punishment might be lessened by telling all that ho knew
about the robbery, sent for the police, and had he not
acted in the mannor be did the property would never have
been discovered or the thieves apprehended. All the
plaintiff did was to give the police certain information
with respect to Roberts, and him alone.
Chief Baron Kelly—The information given by the
plaintiff led to the apprehension of Roberts, and the ap-
prehension of Roberts led the police to apprehend the
burglars. _

Mr. Mellish—The information of Tamer was solely con-
fined to the apprehension of Roberts, and thorn it stopped,
for had not Roberts chosen to open his mouth the matter
might never have been discovered. Under such circum-
stances, he contended that plaintiff was not entitled to
the reward, and that the verdict ought to be quashed.
The Court, without calling on orgeant Parry, who
appeared 'for the plaintiff, affirmed to the verdict of the
jury given in favour of the plaintiff.

COURT OF. BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gaulburn.)
IN RE THE REV. R. LEE, THE RECTOR OF STEPNEY.

This bankrupt has becu before tho Court on a previous
occasion, and to-day ho came up to pass his last exaniiva
tion, and for the order of discharge. Tho liabilities arc
set down as .£9,6::1,7, and the assets, property in the bands
of creditors, £3,181, the deficiency being £1,500. The
bankrupt was described in the proceediugs ais the rector
of Stepney, and it was alleged that the living had been
sequestrated by him.
The case was adjourned.