The Sun.
London, England, 1804-02-10 00:00:00

L REP )RT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Pta. 9.
MR. CONST moved for leave to file a Criminal'
Information against.several persons named in an
Affidavit for a Conspiracy, as it was therein al.
!edged, to prevent the- free course of trade in Lea.
'titer, ,- This was founded, on the, a 5 Li vi r of Thomas
Pilgrim, a`nd others, vvhowe fellmongers, and who
.stated, amongst other:things jri theiclaffidav it, that-
there are but three markets in which,this-businesstwas
carriettion' this in Metropolis, Theitone in Wood's
Close, St— James's „Clorp..-en well';' another in tl!e
Boeoughl and, a third irry.l4irecti.itiel. The. affi_
davit stated, that tficpers,ons,agAinst ,'wh,-,rn this In..
formation, wad," made,.liad,forrned themselves into
_,l:tib,,' and had-come. to ,)certain Resolutions for
';Orevinting the free: course .ot: trade in Leather (the
'lZrqs.oloti.oM were. not produced,„ beca.iife the Prc,4e-
cu'tors could not obtain then-4 not having access to'
Lfil'e,,Club). 'file allid,vits,ltatcd, that in' conse.."
quence 'pf these Resolutions, : entered into by tbis
club, when the Prosecutor went to the.. market for:
.Leatbe,t, they could not purchase_ anx of tha.'coeii.'„
modity,, as usual, and that in consequence of Whic'h
they had been obliged to distpks many of 'their.
journeymen, and that some of them, wh ) had ciao_'
,tracts with the Ordnance, could pot perform their-
contraBs.
The'Court observed, that, there was no evider
of any a6ts done by any of the persons who were
the objets of this Motion, and that unless the
evidence was carried further, the parties must be
acquitted at the ttial, and it would be useless to
grant an information upon evidence which would
MA call for an answer.

Mr. GAR ROW, who was with Mr. CONST in this
Motion, observed, there was other evidence, but
they could not produce it now, the witnesses having
declared, they would tell all they knew of this bu-
siness, provided they were compelled by the process
of the. Court; but they were afraid of the conse-
quences of coming fOrward voluntarily in this case.
Mr. Justice LAWRENCE said, that the Court
had once granted a Crtmindl Informati,,n upon that
sort tf suggestion, but that the Court had after-
ap.frreason to think that it would have been getter'
iltfie'y had nor granted that motion. , If there were
witnesses who objeCted to giving volu;l:.try
i'estimonY in this Case, but who would tell <0; (bey'
knew of it, tiler might be broug`n. by subitz,ht be-
"lore the Grandjury'.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH:4t7sireu'tt to be dist:nccry.
&fide rstood,-:that fie, did not Consi4e,r, (his as An p -
plickionto be.:disctitiraged, quite,Jr4 contrary, .hut
that the Court couNI not grrir the Critni,tinal
matron upon materials so dt;ft.Oive present.
Jule refused, t

'Mr. Y moved for a Writ ofliabeas Cot%
'ptis't6 bring up the bndy of John Newton, on an
AiEdavit, stating, that he was taken by two Run_
nets from Bow-street while he was buying oranges
'ora woman in the Strand ; that- he : ~s. in partnership
':at a hat manufatory at Lancaster, and that he is a
'freeholder to the value of 6001. ; t-11,:t he peter tvas
areea : that when he was apprehended, and taken
before a Magistrate at BoW..:s:reet was so
sty thi.tt he could not giyeany account of himself,
upon which the Magistrate sent ;him on hoard the
Tendei..---Rttle Granted.

THE ICING v. 1.1oRsOu:
Mr. TOPPING said, that this was-a Rule caning
..ortthe fMendant.to'shew Cause why a Criarinal
formation should -riot. be fled against tii:n for certain
'Misdemeanours, upon the Afficlimit of Richard
Pritchard Golden, EAtiire, aCaptain. in the 'Navy,
-!:,4t there was no Affidavit stating 'that the Defend_
ant', who is a Magistrate, had notice of the Mo_
`dOn on which the Rule was obtained ; there was
'only the Affilavit of the Prsecutor, stating the cit-
coMsratices of the Case, but the rule of the Court
,was
never to grant a Criminal InforMarion ogaiost
"i'Magi'steate,witbOut an Affilavit that he had been
'served with a potice of the. Motion, and indeed it
was required to be so by Law.
Mr. GAR ROW and Mr. JArtvis submitted, that
,the Defendant livid` waved this obit4ti(!n by coining
before the Court : it must be taken that he had no-
tice, or he•could not corrieas `he had'cl;')ne, for this
At dry Rule was enllrged at his instance ; but the
Court determined that thi's objeCti6n was fatal to
ah'is Appl ica

Mr. J.
stice LAWRENCE said, that the original
Rule, cailing.on this Magistrate to shew Cause,
-,,ought not to have been granted without an Affi,lavit
that he had been served with notice of the Motion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, be thought the. pro..
teaion given to l'Oagistrates wouLl be 'defeciive,
'unless the parties applying for Criminal Information
against them were held strktly
,to the Rule' rcir:ir-
ing notice of Motion to be given.
"Mr. JARvis observed that application was not
for:any of done by the IVldgistrate, in virtue of his
office, but for what he had not done.

Mr. Justice LAwiusCE said, it was for not
aaing as a Magistrate,' which was of the same na-
ktire as for aaing improperly.
Mr. Justice GROSE said the Misdemanour was
the same in refusing to ate} as a Magi ,s trate, as iii
aC}ing improperly. Rule •
discharged.,

THE KTNC (ON THE ,PROSECUTION OF W'. J9NE,,
VQ.) 1). REV. JOHN ROYLE, CLERK, AND ANOTHER.
The Rule obtained in the last Tt:rrn, calling upc,n
the Defendants to shew cause why an Information
,should not be filed against them, was discharged.

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND

AND THE EARL ,OF FINGALL.
[Concluded from our Paper of Tkesda.y.]

TO HIE• NOBILITY: AND GENTRY OF THE
COUNTY OF. CORK,

THE HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE-OF THE REV. PETER

O'NEIL 4 ;11: C. PARISH PRIEST' OF BALLYMA—
CoDA NOTE t, IJEITER VLI, OF THE COL-
RESPONDENCE).

MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,