Star.
London, England, 1819-11-11 00:00:00

MILLAR •AND ()TITERS V. MARL

This was an action of as:umpsit upon a promissory
nose, far securing the payment of 1:10, which the de-
fend.on had given to the plaintiffs, as surety for one
North. At the trial, before the LORD CHIEF'
EA RON, at the last Assizes for the County of Not-
(.ll,,ham, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs.
...ir.Serjeant VAuunAN now moved for a new
tr al, on the ground that the note was given for
usurious consideration between the plaintiffs and
N.-..rth. The case was this :—The plaintiffs were
lc :ding Members of a Money-lending Society, at
N.ntingham, of which North was a subordinate
3l,!mber. The plaintiffs, at one of their meetings,,
put up to sale the luau of a sum of £2O. Several
Members mere bidders, and at last it was knocked
down to North at the price of £27, which he agreed.
v, pay by instalments, the whole iygregate suns to
inierest at live per cent. until ;ill the instalments
wt-r;.: pi:id. In order to hind the bargain, the deien-
-ed to become North's security, and gave
ilfs the promissory note in question, upon
was sued. The Learned Serjeant submit-
under thtse circumstances the Action would

RT thought enough had been stated to war.
in granting a Rule to shew cause ; which
.ed accordingly.

T AND TIM LONGUE-STU( VAC:I4TR4TTA.
o'clock the Cwt./ Jusrscn and Mr. Jus-
tOYD retired from the Court, leaving Mr.
;AYLEI( and :dr. Justice Bur to sear mo-

tiers of course. Mr. Huntatfist pr
thisr omozutynnti:
entered,
and availing :himsdf of the
pre-
sented himself to the notice of Mr. Justice BAYtEY.
Mr. HcNr—My Lord, will you allow me to make
a short motion ?
Air. Justice 13AYLEY—I cannot attend to you now.
You should have made your motion when the Court
was full.
Mr. Husr--I understood that I would not be al-
lowed to do so until the Bar was gone through ; and
I have been waiting in the Hall all day and all yes-
terday, for that purpose.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY conferred with Mr. Justice
BEST, and it was agreed that Mr. Hunt should pro-
ceed to state what was the object of his motion.
Mr. HUNT then stated, that his motion arose out
of the application which he had made the other day.
He had adopted their Lordships' advice and recom-
mendation, and had applied to the Attorney-General
for the purpose of proceeding against the Munches
ter Magistrates, and it was in consequence of the At.
torney-General's answer to his application that he
now proposed to make a motion.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—On whose behalf do you
move? Is it in a criminal or civil suit?
Mr. IloNr —I am told I cannot move in a crimi-
nal suit. I applied the other day for that purpose.
Mr. Justice I3Avtev—ls the motion in a civil
suit, and on whose behalf is it made?
Mr. HUNT—It is on my own behalf.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—In what suit?
Mr. HUNT—I rather think it will be against the
Attorney-General.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—A civil suit against the At-
torney-General !
• Mr. HUNT-.I suppose the Attorney-General is
liable to an action.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY-llave you instituted an
action against him?
Mr. HUNT—There is no action instituted against
him, nor is there any prosecution. I was only telling
your Lordships, with submission, what is the nature
of my application. I submit, that in applying to
your Lordships, I am in the same situation as if I
were applying to .a Grand Jury, though I admit your
Lordships are a Grand Jury of the highest dignity
and importance in the country. In this point of
view, I trust you will allow me to read a very short
affidavit, which stater the grounds of my applica-
tion to the Court, which is to direct the Attorney-
G eneral

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Is your motion for a Man-
damus to the Attorney--General ?
Mr. HUNT—No, my Lord ; but that your Lord-
ships should direct the Attorney-General to proceed
on this public cause.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—We have no power to give
any such directions. I stated to you the other day,
and I stated as distinctly as I could, what were the
reasons that induced the Court in the exercise of its
duty to declare, that they could not grant an appli-
cation of this kind, unless it was made by a Gentle-
man at the Bar, whose professional education ena-
bles him to judge what is fit and proper to lay be-
fbre the Court for its information.

Mr. HUNT—You say that there cannot be a civil
suit instituted against the Manchester Magistrates,
except it be by an individual.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—But your present motion is
for a criminal suit ?
Mr. HUNT—It is a motion for the commencement
of such a suit.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Which any Gentleman at
the Bar is at liberty to make ; and if you were to',
make out a case fit for the consideration of the Court,
I venture to say you would find many Gentlemen at'
the Bar who would gratuitously undertake the case.
If the foundation of your application was, that you
had applied to every Gentleman at the Bar, and that
all of :hem had refused to undertake the cause, or
that you are not in a condition to employ Counsel,
then the Court might, in the exercise of its discre-
tion, assign Counsel to conduct the cause.
Mr. Husr—This Is an application completely in
point. I will shortly state the facts upon which I
move, and which arise in consequence of my appear-
ing before the Attorney-General last night. I was
aware that I could not come here without an affida-
vit, and therefore I have an affidavit of the facts I
am stating. I applied to the Attorney-General, and
after laying the whole case before him, I called upon
him to bring the case before the Public. He refused,
and I have his refusal in writing. i merely submit
this fact as the foundation of my motion. I was told
by your Lordships the other day, that the Law Of-
ficers of the Crown were the proper persons to under-
take such a cause, and therefore I applied to the At-
torney-General for that purpose. lam aware that
for an individual wrong, my course would be strictly
to bring an action, as your Lordships advised me to do.
Mr. Justice BEST—We did not give you any ad-
vice upon the subject ; we merely told you, that if
' you had any individual particular wrong to complain
of, you might bring an action. You did not state to'
us the other day, that you came to redress any pri-
♦ate wrongs you had suffered, but you stated that
you came for vindictive justice (if I may use that,
expression), and to proceed on the part of the King',
for the supposed crimes of these persons.
Mr. HUNT then proceeded to repeat; in a desultory
conversation with the Court, that he had applied to
the Attorney-General, in consequence of what had
passed the other day, and had called upon him to
prosecute the Manchester Magistrates, but t!tat he
had refused, assigning for reason, that he did not
usually practice in the Court of King's Bench, and
never went there but on official business.

The COURT said, it was true that the Attorney-
General did not attend this Court, except upon offi-
cial business for the Crown and Public Boards; and
that it was competent for him or any other Advocate
to refuse to undertake a cause in a Court in which he
did not usual practise.

Mr. HUNT was again urgent in pressir.g the Court
to interfere in the manner requested.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY-4 will ask you one question.
I wish to know whether your affidavit states that you
have applied to any Gentleman of the Bar for ad-
vice ; and to know whether, in his judgment, it is a
proper case for inquiry ?
Mr. HUNT replied, that his affidavit stated that he.
had applieJ to the.Attorney-General, and that he
had laid the whole of his ca to before that officer.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that this was tier answer
to his question.
Mr. Haar then urged tle Court to hear the eon-
'

tents of his affidavit,
.and .their Lords'uip,.; at length
.24cred him to state *hat the-prayer of his af.idavit
etas, namely, That your Lordships will permit this
deponent to read these allidacitS himself, and that
you will direct the Law Officers of the Crown to per
form that duty for which they are so amply paid by
the Public."
Mr..lastice BAYLEYNOW, will you tell me whn t
power we have to give directions to the Law Officers
of the Crown to institute any prosecution ?
Mr. lit:NT—l think you are all-powerful. I have
found it so. . .

The discussion proceeded at much greater length,
but the above being t specimen of its general char ac-
ter, we forbear entering into any larger detail. Mr.
1-lunt having exhausted his subject,

Mr. Justice BAY!.EY and Mr. Justice Pr .sr deliver-
ed their opinions seriatim at considerable length. In
substance they stated, that this was an application
which could not he entertained by the Court—first,
because the applicant had not shewn that be had ap•
plied to any Gentleman at the liar for advice u:7ort.
the subject of the motion, which their Lordships were
sure would be most cheerfully given by any 6,cntle:
man of the Bar, if properly sought, without anype:
cuniary consideration; and, secondly, because the.
Court had no power to order the Attorney-General;
or any other Officer of the Court, to institute a pro-
secution, that being a power never exercised hy it
and was wholly without precedent. If such .a power
could be exercised, it would be attended with the
most mischievous:consequences to the Public, because
it would totally subvert the province of a Judge,
whose duty it was to administer justice in cases im- •
partially brought before him; and not to assume to'
himself the office of a public prosecutor. Before the
Judges could make such an order as that alluded to,
they must first hear the accusation, and then with
their minds prejudiced by the case laid before them,
decide afterwards upon the case in which they ha
directed the prosecution. Such a proceeding would
be a strange anomaly in a Court ofJustice. On the'
whole, their Lordships, after repeating. the reasons
which they had before given, why a private person
could not put in motion the criminal law of the coun-
try, declared their distinct opinion that they had no
power to direct the prosecution, as prayed by Mr.
Hunt's motion.

Mr. Hoar in a parting reply to the Court, al-
luded to the evidence he had in his posEession
the Manchester- Magistrates, but as he was immedi-
ately checked by the Court, we forbear stating cir-
cumstances which appeared to be couched by rzier
assertion only. He then left the Court in apparent
disappointment. •