Case ID: njl_6/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State against Hunt.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    Where the Sessions have made a return to a certiorari which was adjudged incomplete, and another return made, the court will not refer to the first in order to settle any ambiguity in the second; but a rule may be taken upon the Sessions to amend their second return.
    The Sessions had made a former return to this writ, which the court had held incomplete, and ordered another, which was accordingly made. Upon this second return, the-indictment against the defendant, a plea of guilty, and the judgment of the court below assessing a fine upon him, were brought up ; but it did not certainly appear whether the confession had been made, and the fine imposed before or after the certiorari was served on the justices of the Sessions.
    The Attorney General and Leake,
    
    had moved the court to quash the plea of the defendant below, and the judgment of the Sessions assessing the fine, on the ground that the certiorari was presented to the court below, before the confession was recorded.
    They argued that the authority of the Sessions, to proceed in the case, was superseded by the certiorari from the Supreme Court, and that everything subsequently done was void. Fitz William's case, Cro. El. 915; 1 Bac. Abr. 570-1; 2 Hawk. 418, c. 27, sec. 64; 12 Mod. 384; 2 Com. Dig. 196, “ Certiorari,” letter E.; Crosse v. Smith, 12 Mod 643.
    
      JR. Stockton, for the defendant,
    admitted there was no question as to the law, the cases cited were not disputed; but he contended that it did not appear from the return, at what time the certiorari was presented. There was nothing before the court, from which they could presume that the certiorari was delivered before the plea or judgment, and he therefore prayed that a procedendo might issue upon the authority of the case of Rex v. Gwynne, 2 Burr. 749.
    The Attorney-General admitted,
    that upon this second return it did not appear at what stage of the proceedings the indictment was removed by the certiorari. He offered, in order to supply this defect in the return, to read the return which had been first filed to the certiorari, from which it was apparent that it was presented before the confession.
    This was objected to on behalf of the defendant, and it was urged that the first return being adjudged incomplete; became an absolute nullity; that another return had been actually made by tlie Sessions, which was now before the court, and which alone could be resorted to for the facts.
   The Court

were of this opinion, and refused to hear the first return read, considering it as a nullity.

The Attorney-General then applied for permission to enter a rule upon the Sessions, requiring them to amend their return in this particular, by certifying the time when, &c., which was opposed by Stockton, on the ground that it was too late, this return having been filed so long ago as September term last.

Per Curiam.

If any fact of importance in the case appears doubtful on the return, the Attorney-General ought to have leave to suggest it on the record, and to have the ambiguity removed.

Eule granted.