The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-03 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

Ilis Honour the VICE-CIIANCELLOR was occupied the whole
morning with unopposed petitions.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. FRANCIS KING EAGLE, ESQ...-..CRIMINAL INFOR•

hIATION.

Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK had been instructed to apply to
their Lo:dships for a rule to show cause why a criminal in-
formation should not be filed against Francis King Eagle,
Esq., a Justice of the Peace for Bury St. Edmund's, under
circumstances which he should shortly state to the Court. It
appeared that the election for Bury St. Edmund's was fixed
for Monday, the 24th July, and that on Saturday, the 22d
July, two days before the election commenced, Mr. Eagle had
committed to prison upon an order of application, ten years
a person whom he knew to have a vote, and whom he had
canvassed in vain to vote for the party for whom he (Mr.
Eagle) was interested. He bad committed him without having
issued any summons, which, as the Court was aware, it was
the duty of the magistrate in such cases to issue ; and being
himself a Barrister of many years' standing, he could not
have been ignorant of the irregularity of what lie was doing.
The committal had been made out upon the application of a
person who was not himself an overseer, or an assistant over-
seer, but merely an officer of the Board of Guardians, of
which Mr. Eagle was a Governor ; and he must therefore have
known the character of the man, and that he was not an over-
seer, although he was certainly so described in the warrant.
It was stated further that no application was sworn in the
presence of the individual committed, nor were the informa-
tions read over to him : and all that had been done, after ano-
ther magistrate, who was not a learned gentleman, had refused
to interfere, on account of the staleness of the order, and the
proximity of the election. It was known that Mr. Eagle was
believed to be aware of these circumstances.

Lord DENMAN—When did the refusal by the other Magis-
trate take place ?
Sir F. PoLLocK—I believe the very same day—the 22d
July. The affidavits set forth, further, that it was believed
the Magistrate was influenced by sinister motives.
Lord DENNIAN—Does your affidavit say that it was believed
to be for the purpose of preventing his voting ?
Sir F. PoLLoex—Certainly, my Lord ; and it sets forth
the active interference of Mr. Eagle on behalf of ore of the
candidates, and the dismissal of a watchman for not voting as
Mr. Eagle required him.
COURT—Was the voter actually in prison at the time of the
election ?

Sir F. Poi.Locx—No, my Lord; in point of fact ho did
vote.

COURT-But the deponent believes that he was sent to
prison for the purpose of being kept out of the way ?
Sir F. POLLOCK—YCS, my Lord. The election began on
Monday, and the polling took place on the following day. *
COURT—How did he obtain his liberty ?
Si, F. PoLLocK—I presume, by paying the money.
COURT—We think we ought not to trouble you with going
into the particulars of these affidavits, presuming that you
have fairly stated their contents, and you have entitled yourself
to the rule.—Rule granted.

CRIMINAL INEORMATION.-THE QUEEN V. THE PRO lET 0 11. AND
PUBLISHER OF TIIE NEWCASELE JOURNAL."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been instructed to apply for
a rule to show cause why a criminal information should not be
filed against the proprietor and printer of the .Newcastle
Journal, for a libel published in that paper. His application
was made in behalf of a gentleman named Russell Boulby, an
attorney of that Court, and he had been compelled to make
the application in vindication of his own character. Mr. Boulby
resided in Sunderland, and whatever might be said in the
public papers respecting his political principles was, he ad-
mitted, a fair subject of controversy; but in the present case
the most unfounded aspersions were thrown out upon his reli-
gious principles, or rather his want of religious principles.
Their Lordships, he trusted, would not allow a newspaper
warfare to be carried on with such poisoned arrows ; and no-
thing was more likely to do that, than to introduce charges
which were calculated to degrade a man in the opinion of his
fellow-men, by attributing to him a want of religious princi-
ples. The imputation thrown out against Mr. Boulby
was no less than that he was an Atheist, whereby, of
course, he must be looked upon with suspicion and hor-
ror by ail who were connected with him--by which his
temper and interests would be seriously affected—and if the
imputation were true, be would .be incapable of serving upon
a Jury, appearing as a witness, or taking an oath. At the
election fur Sunderland, Mr. Boulby seconded the nomina-
tion of one of the candidates, a gentleman named White, and
after the election, there appeared in the Newcastle Journal
some account of these transactions in two different places, tie:
der distinct heads, showing that it was done deliberately. In
one part it was stated that Mr. White was " supported by a
reputed infidel," meaning Mr. Boulby ; and in another part
of the newspaper it was- stated that ho was seconded by
Boulby, the Radical Agitator, who had written the letter to
Lord Durham, and that he was " a man without a Gel."
Now, although the newspaper might have been privileged to
denounce Mr. Boulby as a Radical Agitator, they had no
right to follow up that assertion with a direct imputation that
he did not believe in the existence of the Supremo Being. Ile
(the Attorney-General) had the affidavits of Mr. Boulby and
others, who had known him all his life, which would satisfy
their Lordships that the imputation was wholly unfounded.
COURT—Take a Rule.