The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-30 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice J. PARKE.)
THE KING V. BLOCKSON.

Mr. Han said that early in the last term he hal applied
to the Court for a rule calling on the appellants in the case
to show cause why the recognizinces entered into by the
respondent to bring up the case by certiorari should not
he discharged. The case was this—the appellant, a
person named Smith, was convicted before the re-
spondent, a magistrate, of being an idle and disor-
derly person, and for not maintaining his wife and chill.
Smith appealed, and his defence was that the child
was illegitimate, and on the hearing of the appeal the
Court quashed the conviction. The respondent entered
recognizinces, and sued out a certiorari, and broe.ght
the case into the Court of King's Bench. The Court
thought there was not a sufficient finding of the facts and
the usual order was drawn up, that the case must go dovi n
to be re-stated. They went to a new trial. There
was no objection to the new hearing and the Court
of Quarter Sessions confirmed the previous order.
It was laid down that the Sessions is perfectly
competent to come to an opposite conclushm from the
superior Court, and on that latter cccasion 'other witnesses
were examined than on the former one. The sessions
also found specially this fact—that the wife was living in
adultery since she left her husband, but that the child
was legitimate. He (Mr. Hill) moved for a rule, calling
on the other side to show cause why the respondent's re.
cognizinces should not be dischareed, he being satisfied
with the decision in his favour. If the other p irty corn-
bated this decision, it was their duty to take all the steps
to bring the case before the Court. Upon the bearing
of this motion, Mr. Justice Littledale came to this con-
clusion, that the rule should be enlarged until the hearing
of the new cause before the Court of King's Bench. The
Learned Gentleman stated that he had affidavits made in
October last, that the other side bad taken no one step
to bring the case before the Court, nor never would, be-
causa he never could be in a better situation; the order of
conviction is suspended for the present, the parish is
maintaining his wife and child, and the husband is in
exactly the same situation he was before the conviction.
He (Mr. Hill) had the decision of the Court below in his
favour, but that Court could not make any order on the
case, because, in the eye of the law, it is still here by
force of the certiorari.

COURT—You consider the certiorari still in force ?

Mr. HILL—I don't see how we can get rid of it.
Perhaps I might make it a part of my rule to quash the
certiorari.

COURT-The certiorari was merely to bring the case
up for trial. What is your present motion?
Mr. HILL—I move, my Lord, to discharge the rule,
and to call on the other party to show cause why they
should not enter into recognizances to bring the case up
within a certain time, or in default of doing so, that the
last order of the Session should be affirmed.
The COURT said the case was one of some difficulty.
Perhaps the best way would be to enlarge the order till the
third or fourth day of next term, and if the other party
did not then bring forward the case, Mr. Hill might apply
to have the rule made absolute.
The rule, as amended, wds then granted.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)