The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-11 00:00:00

THE KING V. FRANCIS.

This was a rule calling on the defendant, the printer of
the Liverpool Commercial Advertiser, to show cause why a
criminal information should not be filed against him for the
publication of an alleged libel.
Mr. J. PoLimex (with whom were Mr. KELLY and Mr.
W. H. WALTON) appeared to show cause against the rule,
but before doing so he took a preliminary` objection. In
the affidavit as to the place stated to be the place of publi-
cation it was described differently from the place at which,
by the imprint on the paper, the publication really appeared
to be made. In a similar case that had been brought be-
fore the Court the rule had been discharged, because the
affidavits in support of the application did not contain a
statement that the defendant was the publisher of the same
paper as that in which the libels were inserted. If neither
of the modes of identifying the publisher required by the
Act relating to these matters were observed the Court
could not grant the application of a prosecutor. In the pre-
sent case the applicant had not even shown the defendant to
be the publisher, for the affidavit on which the application
was founded, after stating the paper supposed to contain the
alleged libel, did not go on to state that the defendant was
the publisher, and had published the paper at the office
where the imprint on the paper showed the publication really
to have taken place.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT contended that the objection could
not be held sufficient to defeat this application. The cause
of the error was that the defendant had changed his place
of publication ; but if a defendant did that it did not follow
that a person applying against him was on that account to
be deprived of all redress. The Act required the publisher

of a Newspaper to file an affidavit stating the place of
printing and publishing it. When, therefore, the defendant
changed the place of printing and publishing he ought to
have made another affidavit. It was no fault of the pro-
secutor, but it was the fault of the defendant that he had
not complied with the provisions of the Act, and he, and
not the prosecutor, ought to suffer for it.
Lord DENMAN said that in his opinion the rule ought to
be discharged. The Act of Parliament had pointed out
an easy process by which the publisher of a Newspaper
might be discovered, and brought before the Court. It
was the fault of a prosecutor if he did not avail himself of
the Act of 1798, and he must take the consequences of
neglecting to do so.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON concurred, and observed that the
Act referred to by the Lord Chief Justice had been much
complained of at the time, as making publishers too well
known, and so offering too much facility for proceeding
against them. A prosecutor, to entitle himself to proceed
under that Act, must proceed strictly according to its pro-
visions.—Rule discharged.
EX PARTE LAW.

Mr. FOLLETT showed cause against a rule for a prohibi

tion to be issued in this case to the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury. The required prohibition was to stay all pro-
ceedings against John Law in the matter of J. Wood, de-
ceased, until the liability of Richard Coates on a bill of the
said Joseph Wood should be discharged.
Lord DENHAM called on the other side to support the rule.
Mr. WIGHTMAN, who was heard in support of the rule,
said the Prerogative Court had issued an order on two at-
tornies to deliver up a will which they had made, and which
they claimed to retain till certain costs due to them were
paid. The question really was, whether that Court could
thus put an end to an attorney's lien by compelling the at-
torney to deliver up and deposit with the officer of the Ec-
cleciastical Court that instrument on whio he claimed to
have a lien. If the Court could do this, then no attorney
could safely calculate on a right of lien.
Lord DENHAM was clearly of opinion that this rule
could not be maintained.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON said that this Court never did in-
terfere with the Ecclesiastical Court by the issuing of pro-
hibitions, unless the latter were about to do something that
was against laW. He could not tell but that the Ecclesias-
tical Court would cause the instrument to be deposited
with their officer, so as to take care to have his custody of
it considered as a continuation of the custody of the at-
torney himself.

M. Justice WILLIAMS said that this Court could not
assume, at this stage of the proceeding, that the Ecclesias-
tical Court would decide any-thing as to the right of this
gentleman.—Rule discharged with costs.