The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-13 00:00:00

CRIMINAL 'INFORMATIONS

Mr. ERSKINE moved for leave to file a Criminal
Information against Kendal Allanhy, Esq. upon
the Affidavit of Mr. Maddison, (as we heard the
name) Justice of the Peace for the ToWn'and Cor-
p Oration of Youth, in Lincolnshire, a Gentleman
who acted for that Corporation. This,Gentleman,
Mr. ERSKINE said, together with the other Ma-
gistrates, had been the objeas of the Slander of
this Defendant, and he had gone so far as to send to
each of them an Halter, so that these Gentlemen
were under the necessity. of applying Jo the Court
in vindication of the Magistracy to which they be-
longed, and the Court granted a Rule for a Criminal
Information against this Gentleman,which Rule after
a full hearing, was made absolute ; but as the Assizes
approached, when the matter was to be tried, the
Defendant made an apology, which Mr. ERSKINE
read to the Court, in which the Defendant acknow-
ledged his error, and -authorised the'Magistrates at
whose instancelhe was prosecuted, to publish. his
apology. They conceived, not for their own sakes,
but for, the Public, whose Ministers they were,
that the apology should be circulated as extensively
as the libel to which they referred, had been ; ac-
cordingly they published the Apology in the News_
papers, but the present, Defendant now felt himself
offended, because his Apology was posted up in a
Barber's shop, in Which, ERSKINE said, he
was unreasonable, for that such a step was in his
favour, since if it had not been so posted there, the ,
probability was, that the owner of that shop, would
have increased the report and improved upon the
circumstances of it. Rowever, this Gentleman found
himself much offended, andlvtd, on meeting the Pro-
secutor on a sudden, given him a challenge to fight
a duel, the, Words of which Mr. ERSKINE read to
the Court. For these reasons Mr. ERSKINE sub-
mitted to the Court, that these Magistrates were
entitled to come again for the extraordinary inter_
'position of the CoUrt.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked what became of the
Criminal Information which the Court had already
granted against this Gentleman ?
Mr. Ettsictris said, that that Information was
at an end, for that the Magistrates dropt it upon
receiving this Apology from the. Defendant. '
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that with regard to
this kind of Apology, a good deal depended on the
mode of its circulation.
Mr. ERSKINE said, that the Affidavit on which
he moved this, positively, denied that the Defend-
ant's Apology was circulated in this manner.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said,- that if the De_
fendant in this case had committed a bread- v.O the
conditions on which the former information was
dropt for the time, there was nothing, to hinder
the Prosecutors from renewing the prosecution Of
it, that if they did, the Defendant could nut stop
them• in the course of it, without coming to the
Court for that purpose, and upon such fads as were
now disclosed, the Court was not likely, to comply
with his request. The Parties wete, therefore,
entitled to pursite their original information. .
Mr. ERSKINE said, that if that, was the case,
the purpose flir which he made this motion was
partly answered.
The Lord Chief Justice .said, he knew of no-
thing to restrain the Prosecutors from pursuing the
original information, -if the Defendant had- aban-
doned the conditions on which that information was
stopt, and that the Party making an apology,
tacitly acknowledged that he should demean him.
self decently in future; for these reasons. the Court
declined interfering in this matter at present.
Rule refused.

Mr. CLERK moved for leave to file a criminal
information against John Moffat, Esq. and Thomas
Hovey, for a libel on a Mr. Hedger, an Attorney
in 'Worcestershire.

The Prosecutor in this Case was an Attorney,
who did business for Mr. Povey, and drew a Deed of
Composition between that Gentleman and his Cre-
ditors, containing a clause which declared the Deed
to be void if any one of the Creditors,. who had a
demand of more than Joh should refuse to execute.
—A Creditor of a sum much larger, did refuse, and
afterwards employed the Attorney to take out a
Commission against this Defendant, which he did;
upon which the Defendant published a Book, pur-
porting to be an account of the Case, with obser-
vations upon it, &c. in which the, Attorney was
accused with afting merely with a view to his
own interest in obtaining the Commission, &c.
to the Defendant's prejudice—reciting a number of
the circumstances of the Case, &c.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that this was a
mere squabble between a Country Attorney and his
Client, which might be very safely referred to a
Jury of that County by way of Indiament..
Rule refused. ,