The Sun.
London, England, 1806-11-21 00:00:00

LAIV REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. zo
O'MEELEY V. NEWEL.
Mr. PARKE and Mr. P:ARNTHER; sheaved cause
'against a Rule to shew cause why the Defendant-
should not be discharged upon filing common bail.
O'Meeley, the Plaintiff, nol.v in Paris, held the De-
fendant to bail for 135.41. fOr money had and re-
ceived in America. The Affidavit of Debt was
sworn before one Bonhomme, a Notary Public at
Paris. The Signature of Botihomme was verified by
the Affidavirof Mr. Slade, who deposed also, that
he vas-a Magistrate, duly autlitrised by the laws of
France to administer Oaths, and take Affidavits ; and
upon this being produced before one of the .judges
of the King's Bench, ati Chambers, he granted an
order, as is usual in such cases, to hold The Defend-
'nt' to bail.
Sir VICARY OIB'E, who moved the Rule Nisi,
obtained it upon the ground that an Affidavit sworn
in a foreign country., was not such an Affidavit as
was required by the Stat. 12 Geo. I. which requires
mn Affidavit of Debt, in order to hold the Defendant
to bail ; and he cited Pomp v. Lodwixon, 2 Burr.
655, to shew that Affidavits sworn abroad could not
be received.
Lord ELLENwtouon stated, that upon inquiry
it appeared to have been the practice to grant orders
for the holding to bail upon Affidavits so sworn and
verified, as to the authority and signature of the
person taking the Affidavit, for 70 or 80 years back,
to the time of Chief Justice Lee, in 1730, which
was only five years ;liter the passing of the Aet4
On the part of the Plaintiff, the caseofDalman v.
Barnard, 7 T. Rep. 251, was cited, wherein an Al-
fidavit sworn before. the High Bailiff of the Isle Df.
Man was received in a Motion to set aside II
annuity. It was alSo said, that it was every: day s
pra&ice to receive Affidavits of this kind from Ire-
land, upon which the parties were held to bail; and
.it was contended, that these cases were not dis-
tinguishable from the present. • ,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that it could not be
that the-praaice was "so,-and that there could
be no distiktiou between Affidavits sworn in Ire-
land,- the Isle of Man, or in Paris ; but that the
important question would be, whether such an Affi-
davit was one upon which the party, if he ever came
to England, could be indi&ed for perjury ? and; if
not, whether it ought fe be -received under the ALI
of Parliament ? This be thought a most important
question, and, ►n order that it might be more fully
discussed, the further argument was put off till next

Term.
AIE;PARNTHER referred to a position in Hawkins,
P.C. (but to which he could only refer from memory)
that Upon an Affidavit taken abroad, if a Court of
'Justice here be induced to ad, the party upking it
may be putlihlled as for perjury. We have noticed
this case, although it is not decided, because it will
be seen to involve consequences of great importance.

THE KING V. ELDRIDGE AND HIS WIFE.
The Defendants .were brought up to receive sen-
tence for an assault upon, and obstru6ting .an Offi-
cer of Excise, in. the execution of his office. One
Fox, a Supervisor in Newport, in the Isle of
Wight,' having obtained, a warrant to search for
smuggitql goods, went, together with another Re-
venue 011-icer, to search the house of the De-
fendant. SOme conversation passed between them at
the door, when Eldridge said, " what, you are come
for us." He then walked towards the door of his
house. When in the house the -Officer observed that
Mrs. E. looked large, and suspeduing that she had got
some smuggled goods about her, ho offered to search
'her pockets. She said she would not be search-
ed by any man. He then reenested her -to take
the parcel out of her pockets, and she still persisting
t4iat she would not be searched, he desired the bus-
b'aild to search her. She said she Would only be
serclied by a woman—but there being no woman
in the house, and the, husband still refusing, Fox
proceeded to search her, and after sostie struggling,
during which she swore she would run him, through
with a knife, he secured her hands by holdhig them
fast behind her. She then drew towards a table where
there were some knives, and as he stillalield her fast,
she. called to her husband to give her a knife that she
might run the Officer through. The Officer was so
much occupied in securing her, that he did not know
how the husband was engaged, and shortly after ano-
ther Officer coming in, who told the husband that if
he gave his wife the-knife he would run him through,
.the woman was at length subdued, and upon being
searched a tin cannister was takeir froM her pocket,
containing about 31b. weight of ordinary green-tea,
and another cannister of the like quantity was. found
in the house. Upon being asked for. a permit,
Eldridge did not produce one ; and upon being fur-
. tber asked, whether he had 'got a bill of parcels
from an dealer in tea ? he at first said, he did not
know ; 'but afterwards told the Officer that' he had
bought it at Portsmouth. In defence of the Prison-
ers it was suggested at the trial, that Mrs. .Eldridge
endeavoured to procure the knife for the purpose of
cutting the string of her pockets, and letting her
pockets down, in order to prevent the necessity of
the Officer handling her person. The Jury found
them Guilty.
Mr. GASELEE and Mr. MituLE were heard in mi-
tigation. The latter observed, that they had already
been fined 101. and in a penalty for having the tea
. in their possession.
The Prisoners were remanded.