Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

MR. RICHARD BETHELL AGAIN.

FOUNDERING OF THE STEAMSHIP…

I REWARDS TO INFORMERS: THE…

News
Cite
Share

I REWARDS TO INFORMERS: THE GREAT JEWELLERY ROBBERY IN CORN HILL. At the Sittings in Banco, in the Court of Queen's stench, the case of Turner v. Walker was brought forward, in which Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., applied for a rule nisi for a new trial, this cause having been tded on the 19th of December last, before Mr. Justice Kaokburn, at Guildhall, when a verdict was found for tl1 plaintiff for .£250, and a proportionate part of the reward of £ 750 offered by the defendant for the B^V0ry property stolen. The robbery took Ffg^batween the night of the 4th and the morning of • 'of February last, when property to a laree stolen from the premises of Mr. Walker, ??d watchmaker, carrying on business in ora^ • the 7th of February the defendant lssed a.forill, o eriilg, a reward of £25.0 for r>f thfi ?, as should lead to the eon- fcfcian 0750 ^ief or thieves, and a further » ft proportionate part thereof, for o^+l 1 knlfl or a l0a(l to the recovery Oa theW14th of July4"" of the property stolen. ir A Var'sskn?16 plaintiff, who kept a saaU watehmaker s op w a clerkenwell csUed upon the Zftold him that a person property P- pointed, and fonnd a man na,m J^rta there, who was subsequently apprehended, ana -.subsequently, convicted of having received the property knowine it to be stolen, and upon whom two Watpfaea formine Pws of the stolen property were fonnd. R^erts subsequently to his being _tak0n in an(j aiter having been several times rem&nde~' *«xfoPme(j the police that if they went to a pie shop,, '-J^hite- eaapel-road, they would be enabled «° aiaqQv.er the burglars, at least he swore when es:a- mined on the trial as a witness that he made that communication to the police, but he was contradicted. by no less than sir police constables. The plaintiff then brought his action against the defendant for the purpose of recovering the X250 for the conviction of the thieves, which he alleged to have been the result of the information given by him, and also for a proportionate part of the reward for the property re- covered. Defendant paid .£11 into court in order to cover the proportionate part of the reward due to the plaintiff for the two watches recovered from Roberts through information given by him, but denied that t plaintiff had given any information which led to 0 apprehension or conviction of the thieves, or to the recovery of the rest of the property. The jury re- turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the X250 for giving information which led to the conviction of the thieves, and considered that he was entitled to a further sum as a proportionate part of the reward offered for the recovery of the property. The learned counsel now moved for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and of misdirection* He contended, in the first place, that the evidence of the police, to the effect that the discovery and con- viotion of the thieves was the result of a course of inquiry instituted by them independent of the informa- tion given by Roberts, and secondly, that his lordship misdlreoted the jury, in not withdrawing the claim of the plaintiff from them as being too remote. Mr. Justice Lush: You say that the conviction of the thieves and the recovery of the property was not the result of any train of inquiry started by the plain- tiff, but was solely the result of the inquiries instituted by the police ? i Mr. Digby Seymour: Yes, my lord, that is what I contend. Mr. Justice Mellor: I do not see that even sup- posing the conviction of the thieves was the result of the information given by Roberts, that his giving such information was the result of his being given into custody. He might have equally volunteered his statement when he heard of the reward offered, even supposing he had not himself been apprehended. Mr. Justice Blackburn: I myaelf did believe the evidence given by the police at the trial. My own note is, I should have found the other way," but I am not sure that I should go so far as to say that the verdict is wrong. You may take a rule on both grounds. Rule nisi granted.

, A NIGHT IN A WORKHOUSE.

APPALLING LIFEBOAT ACCIDENT.

A SINGULAR. TRIAL AND AN EXTRAORDINARY…

DESTR-UC TIVE FIRE AT ROTHERHITHE.

ltIORE SHIPPING DISASTERS.

FOUNDERING OF THE AMALIA STEAM,SHIP.

[No title]