The Sun.
London, England, 1801-02-11 00:00:00

LMV REPORT.

COUP.T OF KING's BENCH, Fzs. igctr,

rHG KING i'Ve JONATHAN SYMONUS.

TH a Defendant, a respelable Merchant at
Great Yarmouth, in Norfolk,.had been couvided
betbre Samuel Barker, Esq. Mayor of That town,
of an offence under a Penal Statute of King
GEORGE the First, and in consequence the penalty
supposed to be thereby incurred, was by warrant
from the Mayor levied by distress and sale of the
Defendant's goods.—The Wendant however feel-
ittg himself aggrieved by these measures, applied
for a Writ of Certiorari, 'in order to remove the
proceedings upon which " the same were grounded
into the Court- of King's Bench ; and this day
the same carne on to be argued, when after bear-
ing Counsel on both sides the Court quashed the
Conviction, it appearing on the face of it to be
erroneous and irregular, and ordered the Mayor
to pay the penalty and costs levied, over to the
Defendant. The Court, however, desiring that
the business m;ght end here, the Defendant very
willingly undertook not to bring an adidn against
the Mayor, or any of the parties concerned.
Counsel in support of the Convidion, Mr.
GAititow_and Mr. —; Attorney, Mr. Jon N
WiTsoN, Town Clerk of Great Yarmouth. For
quashing it, Mr.. GI nas and Mr. BEST ; Attor-
ney, Mr. EDMUI9 'PR ESTON, Yarmouth.

TUESDAY, FEN. 10.

- MR. EasKINE observed, that a few days ago,
he moved for leave to file a Criminal Information
against THOMAS THogns, Esq. a Magistrate
in Glamorgansbire, for withholding, as was im-
puted to him in the. Affidavit, his Magist'
Authority, to quell a very dangerous and al:a-m-
-ing Riot, of a great number of Miners, in that
County, whose objet -was to make the Owners.
of. Articles of Provisions to sell them at a stated,
price, and to compel them to sign a Paper, pro.'
raising to comply with their demand. The Court
granted him -the Rule on the condition that the}
Magistrate should have had notice that this Mu- •
tion would be made, otherwise the Rule was nor
to be drawn up.' That Notice bad not been given
before this Motion. was made, and, therefore,
the Rule had not 'been drawn up; but since that
time, the Notice had been given, and, there-
fore, with the leaved the Court, he would take
the Rule now.

Mr. BE VAN quoted the. Case of Richard Car-
penter-Smith, reported in the 7th Term Rep. So,
in which it was held, that Motions against Ma-
gistrates, for any misconduti in their Magisterial
Capacity, must not only be made before the end
_of the Term after it has happened, but, if that
can be 4one, in time to enable such Magistrate
to spew Cause against the Rule in the same
Term.-7-This was A Case which was said to have
happened before the last Term, and, therefore,
out of time beyond all dispute, for which reason,
he trusted, . the Court. would not now grant .the
Rule ; since there was no -Apology offered for
this long delay.
Mr. EitsxixE said he felt no other anxiety on
this occasion, than that Magistrates- should be
duly impressed with an idea that they arc to do
every thing in their power to enforce the law, at
the time of peril, to,the ,Public Peace;

. _
Lord KENYON Observed that the Case stated
by Mr. BgvArr was accurately stated. -A Rule
of this sort, or any other of a. criminal nature
against a Magistrate, shoUld not, in general, he
moved at a time that would be too late to afford
him an opportunity of skewing Cause in the
same 'Fenn ; this might be' Mated as ti general
rule, but not without exception ; for, where the
public peace or safety of the Country required it,
the Court would not only grant a Rule for a
Cathipal :Information on the last da), but on
the last hour of it Term, but that was only to be
done where the Case necessarily called for it;'
but it was not so-here, for if this Gentleman
had wilfully n%leeted his duty, the remedy by
Indiament ivas open ; the Case did not, under
all its circumstances, call it:of. the extraordinary
interposition of the Court.—Rule refused.

GARROW moved for a Rule to shew
Cause " Why certain' sums of mohey received by
an 'Attorney should not be refunded, and the
Warrant of Attorney by which .he had entered
up Judgment should not be delivered up to be
cancelled. ---Why the Parties, father and son,
should not :answer the matters of 'the Affidavit,
and that - they. =V be in Coutt at the time of-
shoving Cause.'? . '
He moved this upon an Affidavit which charg.
ed this Attorney thus : 64 That a certain poem* man
borrowed of him I°l. to he paid in ten days, fOr
which he gave a Warrant of Attorney to enter up
Judgment, the charge for which Warrant was iI.
ros. When the time for payment arrived, this poor
man had not the, money', Judgment was entered
up, for which the Costs were 41. Another War-
rant of Attorney was given, for which the Charge
was IL cos.--The day of payment arrived.—
Anothet judgment,was entered up, Costs 41.—
and so on with seven or -eight of them, so that
the poor creature was fixed with expences upon
this, td-the amount of 361,"
Lord KIINYON said, that, many of these affila.
ink Cases were sent to him anonymously, and he
lamented that some means could not be devised,
to bring to suitable Punishment, the authors of
so much,misery on insolvent andelistressed men ;
but many of these Cases were such as from their
nature hardly admitted of legal discussion. Rule
•to spew Cause granted. • ".

THE KING iv. /MERTON.

Mr. Gra as moved fbr the Judgment of the
Cowl on the Defendant:

This was a Criminal LnfOrmation exhibited by
the Commissioners in the Affairs of Taxes, against
Isaac .Emertom, a considerable Nurseryman, in
the neighbourhood of Hadley, for having hung