The Sun.
London, England, 1803-06-27 00:00:00

lohh Siliw, of retet,lanc, St. iota-street, ttiddlesex,i
cheesemonger, 28, at. nine, July s, and Aug, 6, at
twelve, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. Wild, Warwick-
sqUare.
Thomas Jones, 'of Dow Las,' Clamo?ganshire, grocer, July'
7, S. awl August 6, at eleven, at the Bush Tavern, Bristol. 4
A.ttornies, Mr. Bigg, ilatton,Garden 1 ondon ; or Mr.
•
Bigg, Bristol.'
Roelof S.i.trionds, Of I)eivet,' ship.braker, June 2S, -July 9,;
and August b, at ten, at Guildhall, London. Attorney;
l'‘hr. Dawes, Angel:court, ThroginortonLstreet.
John Sawyer and folio Kettlewell, of Leeds, merchants,
July x 6, IS, at the Black-Hi:Hann, Birstall, August 6,
at ten, at the Hotel Inn, Leeds. Attornies, Messrs.
Crossland and Son, Rudd-IA.:1d; or Mr. Battyc, C hancery-
lane, London.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING 4 BENCH, Tdxa 25.
TtiE KlN'd 'V. HORNBUCKLE AND OTHERS.

Turs was a Rule calling on the Defendants,
Messrs. Hornbuckle and Oldnow, Mayor and Al.
of the town of Nottingham, to shew cause
why a Criminal information should not be filed
against them fur having conspired to employ the
Corporation funds for Party Purposes, in the
business of the late Eleetion for that town-, &c.
Mr. ERSKINE spewed can't against the Rule,
which was funded on the Affidavit of Mr. Richard
Houghton, stating the circumstances of the case,
and that a Nlceting of the Corporation was held,
upon which was passed the following Resnitition
" That Mr. Coke and his party have openly avowed
their suppbrt of -a Bill in Parliament • [the Bill then
d Tending fir giving to the Magistrates of the
County a concurrent juticdiaion with those of the
Town, upon the ground that •the Magistrates of the
Town had not preserved the peace and freedom of
Election there] for introducing a foreign Magis-
tracy into the Town of Nottingham, thereby in-
vading the Charter which every Member in this
Hall, and every Burgess, has sworn to defend;
[thereby imputing to Mr. Coke that he was endea-
vouring to destroy the authority which he had
sworn to defend] it becomes this Community to
declare themselves, and they do hereby declare
themselves in the interest of Mr. Birch," [another
Candidate.]

This wa; charged to he a Libel on Mr. Coke,
and was one of the grounds of the Motion for a
Criminal Information against the parties. Another
ground was that of a second Relolution—•-resolved,
" That this Resolution be made known to the
Public by insertion in the Nottingham Journal and
by hand-bills."

The next ground of the Motion was, " That
these parties had, with the same spirit, voted a
Resolution by which the funds of the Corporation
were to be applied in the defence of certain persons
charged before a Committee of the House of Com.
mons with certain miscondun at the late Eledion
for the TOwmof Nottingham, which had been de.
Glared void, &c,. and which was afterwards made
the. foundation of an Aft of Parliament."
The answer to this was stated in the Affidavit of
the party charged, " That they had afted bona fide
and without the least evil intention; that they had
a Corporation fund, which they conceived they had
power to appropriate for the defence of any of the
Members of the Corporation, when accused, and
when they thought them innocent). that they did
think the parties, in this case. accused, ; ;
that they had the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Lams, a
Genleiran of eminence in the Profession, stating
there was no impropriety in such proceeding; that
this opinion was read to the Meeting before the Re_
solution of appropriating the Corporation money for
this purpose was voted, and aned on it ; and they
denied all specks of criminal intention whatever,
for that they really thought the rights and interests
of the Corporation were violently attacked, and
they took these means to defend it :" For which rea-
Sons, Mr. ERSKINE submitted, that this Rule
should be discharged.
Zr. Serjeant LENs, Mr. BALcur, and Mr.
SCARLET spoke much at length, and with great
ability, on the samc
The Prosecution was also very ably supported by
Mr. GARROW and Mr. GIBES. Mr. CLARKE, on
the same side, declined entering on the subjed,
after it had been so ably handled.

Lord ELL I.I.:BUROUGH asked, if it appeared any
where in the Affidavits that Kr. Coke was a Bur...
gess of the' Town of Nottingham ?
Mr. GAMOW said it did not happen to be so
stated in the Affidavits, but the fail was notorious.
Lord ELLENBOII.OIIGH said, that the mere Mis-
application of Corporation funds was certainly not
the subjeet of a Criminal Information, but a misap.
plication of such funds foi a criminal pUrpose, and
in order to carry into elle& a criminal object, would
not only be the.subject of an Indictment, but also be
matter for the interference of the Court by way of
a Crir6nal Information. - The question in this case
was, 14 Whether there wet-before the Court evi-
dence of-a conspiracy to employ. the Corporation
funds to carry into dna a criminal purpose ?"
' The charge which was made against certain per_
sans of the Corporation of Nottingham before the
:Committee, being one of them the Returning. Off-
icer of the Eledion, and the others, two Aldermen,
was negligence of duty when called upon to sup.
press riots ;.. and it appeared to him, to ,be that by
which the Corporation might be critninally• tattled
by:this condua of its Offi:ers ; such had been the=
case of the City of London, in consequence of the,
negligence of its own Officers when certain riots
and tumults took place in the year 178 O. The City,,
of London had been fined for such riots, because
its Officers had been supine and negligent at such
riots. There were many instances of such fines,
for such reasons imposed ; how far, these repeated
instances of iniscondud might itircei the Corporation
in 'another respea, and to a greater extent than that
of a criminal information against the aging indi.
vidusls, he would not now states because it was
not necessary. Here, his Lortiihip observed, the
Corporation had on interest in the subjeet, 'which
was, at the time of this resolution, before the H-Qtl9l!
of Commons,. All the Officers whose conduit '
was
'complained of' might have, been eallect,upon to an..
swer before the House' of Commons. e Report
,of the Committee led to a proceeding to that effeel.
It might therefore be reasonably said, that the Cm..