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 CORNHILL 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
for him 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 into 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 judge who tried the
cause; and also that the verdict was against the
weight of evidence.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.

SWANBORO UGH V. S OTIIE RN.
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 Ballantinc) 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,

HILL V. FINNEY.
His lordship summed up in this case thig' morning
at half-past ten o'clock. He commenced by con-
gratulating the jury on this protracted inquiry
having come to its last stage. It was a case most
complicated in character, numerous in facts, and con-
flicting in evidence, and it was to be regretted that
the time of 12 gentlemen engaged in business should
have been occupied in hearing such a case, which
was better adapted to the atmosphere of the Divorce
Court than to the City of London. The importance
of the case to the parties it was impossible to exag-
gerate. The plaintiff was afforded the last oppor-
tunity by this trial of retrieving his character from
the dark stain resting on it, and restoring him to
his moral and professional position. To the de-
fendant it was of the greatest importance, and other
persons, not parties to the suit, were deeply
involved in the issues raised. In order to
establish his case the plaintiff had charged
his own wife with conspiracy, and as
great treachery as could be well conceived. The
plaintiff complained that in a suit promoted by his
wife in the Divorce Court he had a defence, and
that he had lost an opportunity of making that
defence by the advice of the defendant, who acted
as his legal adviser. That advice, as specifically
stated, was that if plaintiff would consent to his wife
obtaining a judicial separation, the judge would
make the decree without requiring the hearing of
any evidence that would affect his character as an
officer and a gentleman. On the faith of that statement
the plaintiff gave his consent to withdraw his defence,
but the Judge refused to make a decree without
hearing evidence. The plaintiff stated that he had
a good defence, and would have been able to deny
the charges of his wife in the witness-box. In con-
sequence of not having defended the case, his
honour was tarnished, his military position endan-
gered, his commission threatened and a career
which commenced in distinction, was likely to be
brought to an abrupt and disgraceful termination.
To that complaint he made answer, in the first
place, that he had not given the advice
alleged, for what he said was, that if pos-
sible the plaintiff should submit to a decree, but
that if he would not consent to that course, as he
did not believe his statements, ho (defendant)
thought there was no evidence to go to a jury,
but that he night get other advice, but that he
(defendant) must retire from the suit. In the
second place, he said he told the plaintiff that if he
went to trial ho would lose. After some further
introductory observations, his lordship then went
though the evidence at great length.
The case had not concluded when we went to
press.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Martin,
Channell, and Piggott.)
CRAIG V. TAYLOR.
Mr. Cole said—This was an application for a
rule nisi for a new trial. He appeared for the de-
fendant, and the action was brought for certain
charges of sonic shares in a slate quarry, which the
defendant alleged he held merely as a trustee, and
that he was therefore not liable because he never
had a beneficial interest in them.

Mr. Baron Martin said the share could not be
held in trust, because that would enable persons to
go into the street and get the first beggar man he