The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-12 00:00:00

• RLFORi'"

()!..Yrtt OF KING's BENCIIi tiov. li.

Mr. 0.--IRRoW moved for a I's/land:anus to be di_
rested to the Mayor of the Borough of Harwich,
commanding hith to issue big Summons to the Bur-
gesses of that Borough, calling on them to meet for
the purpose of eleCting a person to the office of a
Capital Burgess, in the room of one who is dead.
This Motion was made upon an affidavit, stating
the constitution of the Borough, which required that
the vacancy occasioned by the death of a Capital
Burgess should be supplied by the eleCtion of
other; that this was to be done by the election of
the other Burgesses, &c. That applications had
been made to the Mayor, but that he had declined
to call the Meeting, &c.—Mandamits granted.

Mr. Gaitaow said, he had to move the Court a
second time in the Cause of Duncan against Reeves,
which he had mentioned on a former occasion,
and; by the kindness of the Court,. he had been put
in a train of proceeding on behalf of the Defendant.
The Court had been kind enough to intimate that
upon the produaion of the key of the Defendant's
Lodgings, delivering up the articles for which the
Defendant was arrested in Troyer, a Rule should
be granted calling on the Plaintiff td shew Cause
why the Defendant should not be dischafged on filing
Common Bail a but this course could not be taken,
for the Defendant had not the possession of any
key of any such Lodging, nor did he possess any of
the articles for the conversion of which the Defend-
ant had been arrested for sool. but he had now an
opportunity of bringing the parties in this busi-
ness before the Court for its animadversion. This
Case, the Court would recoiled, arose out of an ac-
cusation made by the Plaintiff against the Defend-
ant, who then lodged with him, of having picked
his pocket of his pocket-hook, which tharge the
Plaintiffafterwards abandoned, and declared it was
a mistake, for lie had found his pocket-book after-
wards in a corner of his pocket. This led the present
Defendant to bring an Action against the present
Plaintiff for a malicious prosecution in that Case,
and which he did for the vindication of his Charac-
ter, fir he could not have continued his situation at
the Theatre, if he had .not so vindicated his charafter ;
but it was that vindication only he wanted, and he
consented to put an end to that Aftion, provided
the then Defendant paid the cost, and also made an
apology for having made the false accusation, upon
which Mr. Duncan :ailed tn his Couosellor (Mr. Deb-
lin as we heard it) the Sheriff's Officer. The result cf
the consultation was, that. Mr. Duncan would not
make an apology for this false charge, and said he
would bedamned if he would make anY apology ; it
was then said that the Cause must go on, upon which
Mr. Duncan said, " he would have him," (meaning
the Defendant Reeves) another way, and so he arrested
him in 5001. for Troyer, as had been already stated.
After serving notice of Bail, application was made
for particulars of the Plaintiff's demand, to this
Sheriff's Officer, who said, that the Attorney in the
Cause was Mr. J. IL Wilkinson, who had resided
at No. is, Gray's_lnn_square, but who had remov-
ed ro No. c, in the same Square. On application
at ihe Chambers of this Gentleman, it was said that
he had no concern whatever•in this Cause, that he
.arrived at Dover on the 3d of November inst. and
came to Town on the ch, and knew nothing what.
ever of any susa;i Cause, and all his Clerks disclaim-
ed all knowledge of the Cause also. Mr. GAR-
Row then repeated what the tiheriff's Officer said
on application to him about this arrest, " that if a
Man chased to say that a Desk was worth 'cool.
the Defendant must give Bail to it, or remain in
Prison."—Under these circumstances, he now mov-
ed for a Rule to shew Cause, why all proceedings
should not be
,staid in this Aaion, why the parties,
Plaintiff, &c. should not pay the Costs of this Ap-
plication, and why they should not answer the mat-
ters of the Affidavit ?

The Court asked what the Plaintiffin this Ac-
tion was ? the Defendant must know him, since he
lodged with him.
The Plaintiff was said to be a Mopseller, in
Wild-street.

The Court then said, that at present the Applica-
tion against the Sheriff's Officer was premature,
and that 'it was not the course to go to any At-
torney whom he named, that Application should be
made to the Plaintiff, to know from him, who his
Attorney was, and afterwards application might be
made to the Court upon' the circumstances which
might then appear.
Here the matter rests for the present.