The Sun.
London, England, 1806-11-14 00:00:00

LAW REPORT,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nay. 12.

Mr. GARROW moved for a Rule calling upon an
Attorney at Cheltenham _to shew, Cause why he
.should-not be struck off the Rolls for miiconduc.-I.
The -offences imputed to him by the affidavit were,
hat, under pretence of being employed to bring Ac-
tions against several persons for penalties, incurred
for not having duly returned the number of horses
and servants kept by them, he had extorted several
sums of money as matter of compromise.
The Court observed, that this- was an once
punishable by pillory, by the Statute of the 18th of
hiiz. ; and; therefore, they Could not try it in the
..utu.mary mode of a Motion they advised, that
,Orne one ease should be seleaed, as the subjea of
indiament.
The Gaoler of Guildford returned to the Habeas
Corpus issued on the second day of the Term,
commanding him to bring up one George White,
--alledged to have been
,falsely committed as a de-
serter; with a view to prevent' his voting at the
Guildford Eleaion. The return was, that he was
duly committed tinder a Warrant from a Magistrate,
and that the Gaoler, befOre the service of -the
-Habeas Corpus, had delivered hull to a Corporal of
the Guards, pursuant town order,from the Secretary
at War.

NOVEMBER. 13.

TIM KING V. VALENTINE JONES.

Mr. ATTOKNEYGENEItt.I. stated, that he had been
called on to spew cause why. several Mandamuses
moved for of behalf-of the Defendant, shoUld not be
i.suerl to the Courts of King's Bench and Common
Pleas, in the Islands of Dominica, Greneda, add Bar.
lxidoes, calling on these Courts to take and transmit
to England; certain pieces oftvidence relative to an
India.ment preferred against the Defendant in June
last, which evidence, he understood, the Defendant
conceived essential to his defence on the impending
trial. The Defendant had been a Military Com-
missary, and furnished also forage and provisions to
his I\4%,;esty's :troops id"-the West India Islands ; and
he h; d entered into " a corrupt contrail" with a
person named Higgins, who was to allow, on such
services made to the troops, the Defendant one
moiety ; which, in filet, he did allow, and paid him
i 60,0001. currency (abodt 80,0001. sterling.) The
Defendant had 'pleaded Not Guilty, and had moved
for.the Mandamuses above described. He bad also
particularized the names of five Gentlemen in those
islands, whose evidence he wished to be taken, as
essential to his defence. But as the Affidavit ran in
general terms, and did not specify the nature of the
evidence wanted, or to be expected from these Gen-
tlemen, he submitted to the Court, that before the
Mandamuses should issue, the "Defendadt should
dike a more definite and special Affidavit.
PARKE, for the Defendant, observed, from
what had fallen from Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, he
• seemed determined to oppose the Mandamuses being
allowed to be issued. If so, he (Mr. P.) must beg
the Court to allow the matter to stand over, as his
Learned Friend, Mr. TOPPING, who was with him
for the Defendant, was indisposed. Mr. PARKE far-
ther said, that Mr. Jones had informed him of the
nature of the evidenCe to be expeeted from the five
Gentlemen alluded to, and he declared he thought it
highly material to his defence. One of these Wit-
nesses was the Defendant's Clerk.
The Court -observed, that it did not appear that •
any evidence of the kind hinted at would be of any
use. The Defendant was indicted for a " corrupt
contra" with Higgins.
Lord ELLENI3OII6UGii desired Mr. PARKE t&af-
ford the materials for exercising a sound discretion,
• 4vhether the Mandamuses ought to be allowed or
not. He could do so by an affidavit,' which might
not disclose the defence, but Merely state, in a more
connected add consistent manner, the reasons which
had Impeded the application for .Mandanfuses being
issued. ,
Mr. Pxiti(E agreed to obtain an affidavit to that
effea, and the matter was ordered to stand over un-
til it should be prOduced.

CHILD WITH TWO MOTHERS.

In this truly mysterious case a Writ of Habeas
Corpus had been issued, dire&ed to Hopkins, the
reputed father of the infant, and this day he re-
turned the Writ,. and came into• Court with the
child and it; mother, Mrs. Nott and her husband,
the persons who claimed the child as their own,
were also present. - The return to the. writ was then
read : it described the father of the child to be Hop,
kids, 'and the'woman who had it in tier arms,' to be
its mother, and the wife of Hopkins. The child,
however, Was illegitimate, Hopkins having married
its mother since its birth. The -Court ordered the
child to remain under the care of its- parents. On
this Nir. Nott burst • into tears, fainted, and was
carried out of Court.'

BIG '4 LL, THE ROBBER.