The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-08 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHERQUE.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Bramwell,
Channel], and Martin.)

SWINFEN V LORD CHELMSFORD-THE GREAT SWINFEN
WILL CAUSE.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Baron at
the last sittings at Guildhall. The declaration charged
the defendant that he, as the leading counsel for the plaintiff
in an issue directed by the Court of Chancery to try the right
as between her and the heir-at-law of the property of her
husband, the late Samuel Swinfen, had wrongfully and
fraudulently entered into a compromise prejudicial to the
plaintiff's interest with the present Lord Chief Justice
of the Queen's Bench, then Sir Alexander Cockburn,
who was the counsel for the heir•at-law. Another account
charged collusion between the noble defendant and
Sir Cresswell Cresswell, then one of the justices of the Com-
mon Pleas, who tried the cause at Stafford. At the trial, in
which Mrs. Swinfen appeared as the plaintiff and Lord
Chelmsford as the defendant, the jury, after a long trial,
found a verdict for the defendant on all the issues.

Mr. Kennedy now moved on behalf of tho plaintiff for a
new trial, on the ground of misdirection, the non-recep-
tion of evidence, and that the verdict was against evidence.
He stated that the second count, which charged collusion
with the learned judge, Sir Cresswell Cresswell, would be
abandoned. Premising that the general circumstances of
the case were so well known as not to require preliminary
discussion, the learned counsel proceeded to review the
proceedings at the late trial, commencing with the formal
proofs as to proceedings in Chancery and the Common Pleas,
and the instructions to the defendant when Sir F. Thesiger,
as Mrs. Swinfen's counsel, with the view of showing that it
was known to him that there had been an offer of a compro-
mise by the heir-at-law, which had been refused by the
plaintiff. For the defendant it was contended that the de-
fendant was only retained subject to his general right of
counsel to conduct a case, and in support of this it was
shown that two ladies who had been called for the plaintiff
had, in their cross-examination by the Attorney-General,
given such evidence as justified the exorcise of that right.
The learned gentleman contended that the evidence given
by the plaintiff's witnesses at Stafford, inreference to letters
written by them as to the testator's state of mind, had
been expected ; and although the circumstances were
unfavourable, they were capable of explanation, and did
not justify the defendant in compromising the case.
The learned gentleman was proceeding with his argu-
ments when we went to press.

The decision of the court is not expected before to-mor-
row afternoon.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

:Before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Bill, 'White-
man, and Blackburn.)
THE QUEEN V. BREWER.

Mr. Bovill this morning moved for a rule calling upon
the defendant to show cause why a criminal infor-
mation should not be filed against him. From the
speech of the learned gentleman it appeared that the defend-
ant was the coroner for Newport, and the gentleman for
whim he (Mr. Bovill) appeared was named Winslow, and
the charge he made against Brewer was that he being a
coroner held an unnecessary inquest, from ill-feeling, &c.,
on the body of Mrs. Winslow, about whose death from natural
causes there was not the slightest suspicion. Mrs. "Winslow,
who had practised in the town as a doctress, and had a
considerable practice, at the beginning of April was
taken ill, and during her illness she refused to
have the assistance of a medical min, as she
said she was perfectly cognizant of the malady under which
she was labouring was incurable, and that it would
cause her death. The lady died on the 12th of
April, but the body was accordingly phced in a
coffin, and before the funeral Mr. Brewer
insisted upon holding an inquest. He was told that death
was quite natural, but he prccured the assistance of the
police to have the coffin opened. The inquest was held,
and the result was a verdict of death had been
occasioned by natural causes. The fees for tho
inquest were charged to the Quarter Sessions, and the cer-
tificate justifying the holding the inquest, it was stated
had been obtained after the investigation had taken place.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CHARGE OP STEALING A MERCHANTS WITCH.—
SIVGULAR CASE.—Elizabeth Thatcher, a smart young
female, was charged before Mr. Bingham with stealing a
gold watch of the value of £l4, the property of M. Casimer
Edmond Flydo Millondin, a French merchant, staying at
the Sabloniere, Hotel, Leicester-square.
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap-
peared for the prosecutor; Mr. Albert interpreted the evi-
dence, and Inspector Webb watched the case on the part
of the police.

4. De Millondin said he was a merchant at present
staying at the Sabloniere Hotel. On the previous night
he met the prisoner, and accompanied here to a house in
Arundel-place (formerly No. 8, and the same house in
which the female named Heloise Taubin was murdered by
Lani, who, it may be remembered, was tried and ezecuted )
On entering the place he put his gold watch produced on
the mantelpiece, and afterwards left the house, and en re-
tiring to his hotel missed his watch of the value of £l4.
He went back, but it was gone.

Mrs. Rachel Levy, the keeper of thehouse, proved going
to a shell-fish shop/and seeing the prisoner there, and on
asking her for the watch, she said a man who was with her
had got it.

Adolphus Picard, of 22, Great Russel-street, employed
in a waterproof warehouse, said the prisoner came to him
in an ice shop, and asked his advice, saying she had got 6s.
6d. from a gentleman and his watch. He advised her to
search for the owner and to ;,ive it to him, and he assisted
her for an hour in doing so, and on the last witness asking
for the watch gave it up.

Mr. Bingham said he thought it very excusable of the
accused taking the watch, and ho placed credit on wLat the
witness Picard said. The watch must be given up to the
owner, and the prisoner be discharged from custody.