The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Mr. Justices Blackburn, Lush, and Mellor.)

TARNER V. WALKER--THE CORNIIILL BURGLARY.

Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., on the part of the
defendant, moved for a new rule calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why a rule should not be
granted directing a new trial. The action, which
was tried before Mr. Justice Blackburn at Guild-
hall, was brought by the plaintiff, a watchmaker,
carrying on business in Wilderness-row, Clerken-
well, against the defendant Mr. Walker, the watch-
maker in Cornhill, whose premises were entered by
some burglars under very extraordinary circum-
stances, and property to the amount of over
£6,000 stolen. The burglars having been successful
in eluding discovery by the police, Mr. Walker
issued a placard offering a reward of £250 to any
person who should give such information as should
lead to the detection and conviction of the robbers,
and also a further reward of £750, which was to
be dependent on the amount of property recovered.
The perpetrators of the robbery remained for some
time undiscovered, and the utmost alarm was occa-
sioned in the extensive jewellery establishments in the
neighbourhood, as it was felt whilst the persons who
had entered Mr. Walker's premises were at largo no
person was safe. A fortnight after the robbery a
man named Roberts entered the plaintiff's shop and
produced a watch, asking him if he could repair it.
Plaintiff examined the watch, and told the man he
could, and that it would be ready the next forenoon.
After Roberts left, the plaintiff made a minute exa-
mination of the watch, and ultimately he discovered
traces of the name of "Walker" upon it, and he
came to the conclusion that it formed a portion
of the property stolen from Mr. Walker's shop.
He went to Inspector Hamilton of the City police
and informed him of the matter, and two detec-
tives were sent to plaintiff's house, to be in readi-
ness to apprehend the man who had brought
him the watch. The following day, at the ap-
pointed time, Roberts came to Tamer's shop for
the watch he had left for repair, and in a few
moments after he had entered the house he was
in custody of the detectives, who had been in waiting
forhim in plaintiff's parlour, at the back of the shop.
On being searched another watch was found on the
person of Roberts, who was afterwards taken to the
Mansion-house and charged with having in his pos-
session a portion of the property stolen from Mr.
Walker's shop. He was remanded, and in two or
three days after he had been in the House of
Detention he sent for Inspector Hamilton, and
told him that he could give certain information
which would lead to the capture of the burglars.
He then told Hamilton to go to Whitechapel-road,
and at a certain pie-shop he would find the robbers.
Acting on this information the police went as
directed and effected the capture of a number of the
burglars, and recovered a great quantity of the
stolen property. The whole of the men were
afterwards convicted and sentenced to different
terms of penal servitude, and the plaintiff
claimed the reward, the whole of the
discovery being made by the information he had in
the first instance given to the police. The de-
fendant denied that the information which led to the
conviction was derived from the plaintiff, but paid
a small sum int..° court as the per tentage he was
entitled to on the two watches recovered from
Roberts. This was rejected, the matter went before
a jury, and the result was as above stated, a
verdict for the plaintiff on all points. Mr.
Seymour contended that the information
given by the plaintiff was of too remote a nature to
enable the police to act : that there was misdirec-
tion on the part of the learned juage wuo trim Lne
cause; and also that the verdict was against the
weight of evidence.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
SWANBOROUGH V. SOTHERN.

Mr. Bovill, Q.C., said in this action, which was
brought by Mr. Swanborough, the lessee of the
Prince of Wales's Theatre, Birmingham, against
Mr. Sothern, the celebrated representative of Lord
Dundreary, for breach of engagement, and the jury
gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5O.
Steps had been taken with a view of having the
matter reopened, but both parties had met, and the
result was an amicable arrangement had been ar-
rived at. Hls learned friend, Sergeant Ballantine,
who was counsel for Mr. Swanborough, had, how-
ever, a few words to say, after which the matter
would be arranged satisfactorily.
Sergeant Ballantine said Mr. Swanborough had .
heard Mr. Scthern give his evidence, and that it
was ill health that prevented him carrying out his
engagement, and was so satisfied of the fact that at
an interview between the parties an arrangement
had been made which, while it was satisfactory to
both parties, would render further proceedings quite
unnecessary.
(Sittings at Guildhall.)
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)