The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-21 00:00:00

as it appears to me, by looking at the report, it does not
seem any thing more was decided there but that upoia the face
of the return it was informal. But supposing that
was not so, I apprehend it would be found, on examine; ion,
that cases of privilege may stand on a different footing fro.'n
ordinary cases, aad that were the Court to see any of its offi-
c2rs, or that any privilege had been dealt with unfairly, the
Court might ex-officio institute an inquiry of its own, yet
that the great current of authorities is the other way.
But, perhaps, in the earlier cases, the party was at
libirty to controvert the truth of my plea, and in the
latter cases a practice of filing affidavits had been allowed irr
some instances. Now, Sir Michael Foster is to be taken as
a very strong authority in this matter. It is well known
e bat his opinions were, and if he does not carry the point
further than that the party controverting the return may
fie affidavits for that purpose—if he does not go on:
to say that it was incumbent on the party to support the
raturn by affidavits—it must be taken, I think, that Sir Michael
Foster had not, at that time, found any authority for that. So,
then stands the case on the authorities ; and then the mode
in which Mr. Hill seeks to apply them is this, " Though
we find by the authorities the onus has been oa the party
coatraverting the return, yet justice requires you should now
shift that onus and throw it on the other side. Now, -I
must say, that that is a position in support of which
no authority has been cited, and the Court cannot go to that
extent. Therefore, I agree with the opinion expressed that
there is no ground for granting the first part of the application,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lords. what I am now
going to ask is that which I apprehend w 1 be for the conve-
nience of both parties, which is, that your Lordships should
direct this rule to be drawn up for an early day—say peremp-
torily for 'Wednesday morning.
Lord DENMAN—Have you any objections to that, Mr. Hill?
Mr. HILL—None at all, my Lords. We shall probably
find it proper to plead on the return.
Lord DENMAN—That is subsequent matter.
Mr. H ILL—Yes, my Lord, but I was merely about to say that as
that would be a new course of proceeding I trust there will be
no attempt to remove the prisoners beyond the jurisdiction
of the Court, untii ample opportunity is allowed for any pro-
ceeding their advocates may think necessary.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lords, I shall take care, so
far as I can, that the prisoners are not removed until the
most ample opportunity is afforded for applying to the Court
in their favour, in every mode that ingenuity can suggest.
Mr. HILL—Your Lordships have desired that they should
be remanded. I presume they will be remanded to the cus-
tody from which they have been brought ?
Lord DENALAIsf—That is not inconvenient. I suppose?
Mr. HILL.—Oh no, my Lord. Then I understand my
Learned Friend will leave it where it is with regard to all
natters we consider your Lordships to have decided upon.
The prisoners were then removed in custody.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

TEIR. QUEEN V. SIR JOAN MILBANKE.

Mr. CRESS WELL was instructed, on the part of Sir John
Mitbanke, to move to make the rule absolute which was granted
by his Lordship a few days ago.
Mr. BINGHAM was instructed to consent, on the part of the
Magistrates, and Mr. SAUNDERS on the part of the prosecutor.
The rule was made absolute accordingly, on the party en-
tering into recognizances, himself in 1,0001., and four sureties
in 2501. each.
THE QUEEN V. THE SELECT VESTRY OF ST. MARGARET'S,