The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-04 00:00:00

LOCKHART V. BERNARD.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES --- in thisQ;;; which was tried
before Mr. Baron Alderson at the late assizes for the
county of Bedford, and a verdict found for the de-
fendant, he had to move for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff
with 1001. damages. He moved upon points which were re-
served to him by the Learned Judge who tried the cause.
The declaration being in assumpsit stated, that the
defendant caused to be printed and published a
certain advertisement, setting forth that a certain
parcel, contaiaing bank-notes and bills of exchange, which
had been forwarded to Sir Charles Price and Company,
bad been either lost or stolen ; and the defendant, by
that advertisement, promised that whoever would
give such information as should lead is the im-
mediate recovery of the parcel, or to the early apprehension
of the guilty party, if stolen, should receive the reward of
1001. The declaration then went on to say, that the plaintiff
did give such information, and the defendant thereby became
liabl to the extent of 100/. ; and concluded by alleging,
a breach of the promise in the advertisement. The de-
fendant to that declaration pleaded non-assumpsit, and that
the plaintiff did not give the information, and the jury found
for the plaintiff on the first issue, and for the defendant
on the second. The facts of the case were shortly
these :—Bernard, the defendant, was a banker at
Bedford, and in September, 1840, he sent up a parcel by the
Times coach, from Bedford, containing bills and bank
notes, being of the value of 1,0001. and upwards.
In the course of its transit to Sir Charles Price
and Co., Mr. Bernard's agent in London, the parcel
was lost; and, in consequence, on the 27th of September, Mr.
Bernard published a hand-bill, and that hand-bill contained
the offer of 100/. to any person who should give such informa-
mation as should lead to the immediate recovery of the parcel
if lost, or to the early apprehension of the guilty party i
stolen. It appeared that shortly after this a person of the
name of Richards came into the shop of the plaintiff, who
was a draper and general dealer at Dunstable, in
the county of Bedford, and asked for some lady's
stockings. The goods were supplied to him, and he
tendered a 101. note in payment. Now the conduct of
this person excited the suspicion of Lockhart, and in
consequence of that suspicion he went to a person named
Cheshire, another shopkeeper in Dunstable, and mentioned
the circumstance to him. It then turned out that
Cheshire had received a 101. note from the same person, and

. .
under almost precisely similar circumstances.. The two ac-
cordingly went together and gave information to the Dun-
stable constable, and eventually Richardson was arrested
while in bed at one of the local iur.s, and subsequently tried
at the Dunstable sekliions, found guilty, and transported, for
being concerned in stealing Mt. Bernard's parcel. The plain-
tiff then made application for the reward, but it.
was refused, and the result was the present action.
On the trial, however, of the cause the jury returned a ver-
dict for the defendant; on the ground that the information was
not given by Lockhart alone but jointly with another per-
son. and, therefore, Cheshire and Lockhart ought to have
joined in the action. He (Mr. Sergeant Byles) however
contended that Lockhart gave the information individually,
and consequently he had to move that the verdict be set
aside and a verdict be entered for the plaintiff, with 1001.
damages.
The Court confirmed the verdict of the jury, and argued
that the action ought to have been brought jointly by Lock-
hart and Cheshire.—Rule refused.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
THE RAILWAY ROBBERIES.
On the opening of the Court this morning, Charles May-
nard, alias Charles Gregory Maynard, 47, house agent, was
placed pt the bar on the charge of felony.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Ballantine for the defence.
The prisoner was indicted on several counts ; with stealing
a writing desk containing a sum of gad and several pro-
missory notes, belonging to Mr. Prance, solicitor, Bridge-
water; also with receiving the same, well knowing it to have
been stolen; and likewise with being an accessory after the
fact.