Star.
London, England, 1818-11-26 00:00:00

would the Attorney-General be I
the particulars of such a com,
ssnredly pot. Bet in a Colony it
-portant he should not do so ; for
scarcely any body else to consult
ith, and relied on the Attorney-
)s much for the general grounds.
. occasion, the evidence did not
as it ought to have done, but of
Serjeant Firth did nct recollect
what passed on the occasion ; and
iniou that this was not an official
\Vhen the grounds of his opinion
the only reasons he had for not'
dal communication were, that he
act in consequence of it.
,saorr said, the witness had added
had not been shewn him for his

COPLEY—He meant merely that no..
i the inference had been drawn by
unsu.pported by facts.
Ntr—Surely the niErMative lay on you to
_ _
an oilicial communication.
COPLEY contended it did not. Where
was from the Governor of a pro-
icy such communication
icial, and it lay with the °the.
, was not. Unless he established
was in vain for liim to argue. It
the other side to shiw that there
taking the case out of the ge-

iI(LET—You ought. tO
_thew quo
iunication was made.'
'oextv--The qua maw. might to be
. side ; it was a case of thegreatest
would be indeed hard if. aft 4.ttor-
be called forth, on all occasions,
,sscd between him and the• Governor.
' of public policy; such communica-
be privileged from disclosure.
isorr—Whether or no the pa'mph
ground of this indictment, ought
lined to the Jury, was a distinct
nothing to do with the present.—
tuestion was, whether or no the evi-
Serjeant Firth ought to have been ex-
ground of its having been an official
? The first proposition appeared to
laid down a great deal too broadly,
communication passing between
the Attorney-General, on public
confidential, anti must be, prima facie,
;al. A communication, in order to
. relate to official subjects. But sup-
proposition to be taken to its full extent,
-.ality all such communications were,
:ial, the question was, whether the
not shew negatively, that this was
-rnunicaion ? that depended on the
the witnesses, and he expressly
considered the communication not
• he was shewn a pamphlet, which
oasidered an official document ;
lying in a box ; and that no parti-
stated for sheaving him such a
rned chat the idea of an official
:crtained by the witness was too
as therefore asked further questions
. likh he replied, 4. that the pamph-
nun his hand as a guidance for his
the conduct of any business as At-
To,decide in favour of this evt-
in anywise, limit the bounds of
, because they must always extend
iunication of sentiments on public bu-
'as a very different matter, being
. printed pamphlet. Considering,
the Attorney-General was not called
in consequence of the communi-
, hot made for his guidance its any
or for the purpose of asking his
, evidence was not privileged from
was properly admitted on the trial.
,IFLEY said, the Ceurt would always
ileged communizations; but the distinc-
antse that were privileged, in official
that were not, was, that if made for
they were privileged, but not, if
appeared clearly, from the testi-
_ Firth, that the communication
been made for any public purpose ;
'tore, the evidence was well rece►ved.

4
1
•
...i..—........
i • .I.ls in this countrii '
*liberty to ffiselOse
Munication? Assure
*as still more impc
the Governor had sc
. dr communicate with
General alone. Thus
iA's to the particular
consist of facts, as
Matter of opinion. l
the particulars of ,s-. 1
then gave his opinic
• . communication. W
. were sifted, he said
, ' --• 'thinking it an oflich
was not ordered to a
• • Chief-Justice Ana
that the pamphlet 1
. • .: idance or advice..
, Mr. Serjeant COPL
, . ing.passed ; and tl
1 - the Witness himself, t
The Conti—Sure
' lthew that this was ai
`• : Mr. Serjcant Con
the communication i
• ovinceto his Attorne
i was prima facie offi c
side to slew that it s
.that proposition it w;
,••• •as incumbent on tl
• was some circumsta:
neral rule.
Mr. Justice BAY
anima the communie
.-' Mr. Serjeant Cop]
shewn on the other s
.
importance, and wei
• ney-General should
to state what passed
I n every ground of
•ons should always 1
Chief Justice ABB
,let which was the gi
to have been submi
question, and had n
• The present questio
dence of Mr. Serjea
. sanded, en the grog
• communication? 1
.m to have been la
namely, that every
a Governor and ti
matters, was confict
considered official.
• be official, must rel
posing the propositi.
and that in reality
prima facie, official.
prosecutor did not
• not an official comrr
• , ..; evidence given by
. , • , stated, " that he co:
i to be official;- that I
could hardly be cc
that others were lyi;
I - cular purpose was
pamphlet." It seer
1 cosnmunication entc
narrow'; and he v.-a,
• by stile Court, to stqi
~, let was not put into
41 ' conduct, or for the
- torney-General."
dence would not, i
. official confidence,
. to every communic.
.. siness: but thiss wai
the reading of a
- therefore, that the
• on te dcoany thing
cation, that it was
.4 - public business, o
advice, I think the
disclosure, but was
Mr. Justice Illai
• protect privileged e
uon between those
cases, and those tit
public . purpOses tl.
otherwise ; but it 2
mony of Serjeant
could not have bee
•
. • he thought, thereto
'.
Rule discharged.
I
Mr. GAZELEE I'
I rested to the keepei
I him to bring up th
his custody undo;
shooting at a perso
fondant was next d
some persons had 11
' and being distnrbe
parties to make les
' vation of the evil,
duing their noise,
. stones. Irritated
blunderbuss, bade
being struck with
I ~ and shattered one
much, that he was
other person wash
• 14 at the assailants ab
i 1-..-,_ and committed tc
, • ' , stating the above!
this Writ.
t ( fr
-Mr. JERVIp ant
i
`.
r r ' a Hule for a Ma
:*Otfordshire, con;
'. one of the Cores
•k ' Rog allowances fo
4 by -virtue of his c
' •., , The Count. he
• i, ; lowing any crave
II lnquisition, and,
Ir . S : COUR
.I._ TN* COMMISSION
r . EYE IN COMMIS
, ) Upon this case
.last-was resumed
it
4
i . -. • Mr. Serjeant C
..; whirls-the rule c
0 :- ncd Counsel con:
-, ..
.
s.,