more formal shape than that in which it was first drawn up, and of which a copy had been delivered to the party convicted by the magistrate's clerk; the conviction returned being warranted by the facts. Rex v. Barker, 1 East, 186. An information goes against a justice for committing a man for not paying 1s. for discharging his warrant. Rex v. Jones, 1 Wils.-7. Rule nisi for an information against justices of peace making a commitment without previously taking a prosecutor's oath, who was a peer of the realm, and also for neglecting to take the noble prosecutor's recognizance to prosecute, discharged, these being deemed only irregular, not criminal. Rex v. Fielding, 2 Burr. 719. An information will be granted against a justice of the peace, as well for granting as for refusing an ale license improperly. Rex v. Holland, 1 T. R. 692. An information was granted against justices of peace, for refusing to grant an ale license from motives of resentment. Rex v. Hann, 3 Burr. 1716. And see Rex v. Young, 1 Burr. 556. of clerk to the magistrates, and threatening a repetition of the same language whenever such magistrate came into the town, unless there appears an intention to provoke a breach of the peace. Ex parte Chapman, 4 A. & E. 773. The court will not grant a rule nisi for a criminal information against magistrates, unless it appears they have acted from an oppressive, dishonest, or corrupt motive, under which fear and favor are included. Fentiman, In re, 4 N. & M. 128; 1 A. & E. 127. A criminal information was granted for these words, in a letter to a mayor: "I am sure you will not be persuaded from doing justice by any little acts of your town clerk, whose consummate malice and wickedness against me and my family will make him do anything, be it ever so vile." Rex v. Waite, 1 Wils. 22. Where a magistrate upon whose property a malicious trespass had been committed, issued a summons, requesting the offender to appear before himself, or some other magistrate, and purporting that infor mation had been given to him (the magistrate) on oath, whereas no oath had been taken, and the information had been communicated by the mag An information against a justice, upon a charge of refusing to grant a license, will be refused, if the rea-istrate to the informer, the court in sons assigned for the refusal prove discharging a rule for a criminal infalse in fact. Rex v. Athay, 2 Burr. formation against the magistrate 653. refused to give him his costs. v. Whateley, 4 M. & R. 431. An information was granted for refusing to grant licenses to those publicans who voted against their recommendation of candidates for members of Parliament for the borough. Rex v. Williams, 3 Burr. 13, 17. But where the justices had not appeared to have acted corruptly, an information was refused. Rex v. Baylis, 3 Burr. 1318. The court will not grant a criminal information for calling a magistrate a liar, accusing him of misconduct in reference to his having absented himself from an election Rex A rule for a criminal information will not be granted against justices who wrongly or improperly reject bail, unless it manifestly appears to the court, by conclusive and satisfactory evidence, that they were also influenced by partial and corrupt motives. Reg. v. Badger, 6 Jur. 994-B. C. Where the pecuniary sufficiency and solvency of bail are undisputed, the rejection of such bail on the ground of a coincidence of political opinion with the person or persons for whose appearance the bail offer to become surety is improper, even though such rejection by the justices is reconcilable with the absence of corrupt motives. Ib. Where justices reject bail on the ground that the parties entertain objectionable political opinions, and on other grounds which are concealed and not stated, the court will grant a rule nisi, calling on the magistrates refusing to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against them. Ib. The justices in answer to the rule deposed that they were not actuated by any corrupt or malicious motive in the rejection of the bail. The court discharged the rule, but required them to pay all the costs. S. C. D. & M. 375; 4 Q. B. 468; 7 Jur. 216; 12 L. J., M. C. 66. The court will not grant a criminal information for unwritten words imputing to a justice malversation in his office, if the words neither were spoken at the time when the justice was acting nor tended to a breach of the peace. Marlborough (Duke) Ex parte, 5 Q. B. 955; D. & M. 720; 1 New Sess. Cas. 195; 8 Jur. 664; 13 L. J., M. C. 105. See Reg. v. Rea, 7 Ir. C. L. R. 584Q. B. When a criminal information is applied for against magistrates, the question for the court is, not whether their acts be found upon investigation to be strictly right or not, but whether they were influenced by corrupt, oppressive, or partial motives, or acted in error, and from mistake only. In the latter case, the court will not grant the rule. Reg. v. Badger, D. & M. 375; 4 Q. B. 468; 7 Jur. 216; 12 L. J., M. C. 66. Where an assault is committed by a magistrate on an attorney several days after he had conducted certain proceedings against such magistrate, the court will not grant a rule for a criminal information (inasmuch as the breach of the peace has not been quà magistrate), but will leave the party to the remedies by indictment or action. Lee, Ex parte, 7 Jur. 441 B. C. (b) Time of Application. The court will grant a rule nisi for a criminal information at the end of a term against a magistrate for mal-practices during the term, but not for any misconduct before the term. Rex v. Smith, 7 T. R. 80. A criminal information for misconduct in office may be moved for against a magistrate in the second term after the alleged misconduct, though an assize has intervened, the motion being made early enough to allow of cause being shown in the same term. Reg. v. Saunders, 10 Q. B. 484. Where facts tending to criminate a magistrate took place twelve months before the application to the court, they refused to grant a criminal information, although the prosecutor, in order to excuse the delay, stated that the facts had not come to his knowledge till a very short time before the application was made. Rex v. Bishop, 3 B. & A. 612. A criminal information may be moved for against magistrates, for misconduct in the execution of their offices, in the second term after the offense committed, there being no intervening assizes. Rex v. Harries, 13 East, 270. The court will not grant a rule nisi for a criminal information against a magistrate, so late in the second term after the imputed of fense as to preclude him from the opportunity of showing cause against it in the same term. Rex v Marshall, 13 East, 322. If a complaint for an information against a justice of the peace proves frivolous, the attorney as well as the original complainer must pay the costs. Rex v. Fielding, 2 Burr. 654; 2 Ld. Ken. 386. (c) Notice of Application. A magistrate is entitled to notice before an application is made for a criminal information, where he is charged with misconduct in his magisterial capacity, although other misconduct is also charged. Rex v. Heming, 2 N. & M. 477; 5 B. & Ad. 666. A magistrate is entitled in all cases to six days' notice, of an intention to apply for a rule nisi for a criminal information; and it is not sufficient that, in point of fact, six days have expired between the notice and the motion, if the notice contemplates an earlier application. Ib. 5. Sending a Challenge. The court will not grant a criminal information for sending a challenge, if, in the course of the transactions out of which it arose, the prosecutor has himself sent a challenge to a third person connected with the party against whom he moves. Rex v. Larrieu, 7 A. & E. 277. And this, although the prosecutor's challenge was sent into a foreign country, and did not show any intention to break the peace here. Ib. An affidavit by A., stating that B. had brought him a challenge from C., and that B. had refused to make an affidavit that C. sent him with it, is not evidence in which the court will grant a rule nisi for a criminal information against C. for sending the challenge. Rex v. Willett, 6 T. R. 294. Rule to show cause for an information for challenge granted, upon producing only copies of the letters containing it. Rex v. Chappel, 1 Burr. 402 An information was refused where the charge of giving a challenge was made under false and ambiguous colors; the words spoken admitting of a favorable interpretation. Prideaux v. Arthur, Lofft, 393. Where a person who was challenged to fight a duel applied for a criminal information, and in his affidavit, in support of the applica tion, stated, "that the defendant had been dismissed from her Majes ty's service, under circumstances which would, in the opinion of officers and gentlemen, disentitle him to make any appeal to the laws of honor, in a case where no offense was given":-Held, that by casting these imputations on the defendant, the applicant had forfeited his right to obtain the interference of the court by a criminal information. Reg. v. Doherty, 1 Arn. & H. 16. Upon a motion for a criminal information against A. for challeng ing B., an affidavit stating that in a correspondence between them A. had intimated an intention, after the settlement of accounts between himself and B., to require an apol ogy for offensive expressions contained in a letter received by him from B., or "such satisfaction as is usual on such occasions between gentlemen;" and that afterwards, C., a relation of A., came with a letter of B. in his hand,-settled the account by paying a balance due from A. to B., and, after saying that he had come in consequence of the letter in his hand, delivered a hostile message as from A. :-is insufficient to connect A. with the challenge; and therefore the court refused the rule. Rex v. Younghusband, 4 N. & M. 850. The affidavits in support of an application for a criminal information against a party for writing letters provoking a breach of the peace, stated the belief of the deponents, that the letters were in the handwriting of the party, not from their own knowledge of his handwriting, but from the information of other persons; the court refused a rule to show cause, on the ground that such evidence would not warrant a grand jury in finding a true bill. Williams, Ex parte, 5 Jur. 1133-Q. B. The court also refused leave to renew the application upon affidavits supplying sufficient evidence of the handwriting. Ib. |inal information against the members of a corporation for a misapplication of the corporation money. Rex v. Watson, 2 T. R. 199. 6. Against Parish Officers. If a parish officer makes an alteration in a poor-rate, after it has been allowed by two justices, but without the approbation of the justices, A summons was issued against a he cannot be punished by informa- judgment debtor, under 9 & 10 Vict. tion. Rex v. Barratt, 2 Dougl. 465. c. 95, s. 98, calling upon him to apAn information lies for a conspir- pear, and to be examined by the acy by parish officers and others to judge of the court touching his es marry persons settled in different tate and effects, and the manner and parishes, if the delinquents are of circumstances under which he congood situation in life, but not if they tracted the debt which was the subare low and indigent. Rex v. Comp-ject of the action in which the judg ton, Cald. 246. The court refused a rule to show cause why a criminal information should not be granted against overseers, for endeavoring to induce paupers fraudulently to remove to another parish, the remedy being by indictment. Reg. v. Storwood (Overseers), 9 Jur. 448; S. C. nom. Reg. v. Jennings, 2 D. & L. 741; 1 New Sess. Cas. 488; 14 L. J., Q. B. 488 -B. C. By 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 97, if any overseer shall purloin, embezzle, or wilfully waste or misapply any of the moneys belonging to any parish, every such offender shall upon conviction before any two justices, forfeit for every such offense any sum not exceeding 207.; an information against a parish officer under this statute for misapplying, without the word "wilfully," is bad. penter v. Mason, 4 P. & D. 439; 12 A. & E. 629. Car ment was obtained, and as to the means and expectation he then had, and as to the property and means he still had, of discharging the debt, and as to the disposal he might have made of any property. The debtor appeared, and was duly sworn. The judge asked him whether he was prepared to pay; he answered in the negative; and was entering into an explanation of the circumstances, when he was stopped by the judge, who ordered his immediate committal to prison-Held, that these circumstances afforded no ground for criminal information, there being no imputation of a corrupt motive on the part of the judge. Anon, 16 Jur. 995-B. C. ish; The court granted an information against the inhabitants of a parish for non-repair of a road, where it was deposed that a bill of indictment had been preferred at the assizes, but thrown out by the grand jury; that two of the grand jurors were proprietors of land in the parthat one of them who had acted on behalf of the parish at an earlier stage of the dispute had stated to the foreman that the road was useless, and that both had taken an active part in opposing the finding of the indictment, such deposition being contradicted only by general statements that the two had taken no undue or active part in opposing the finding. Reg. v. Upton St. Leonards, 10 Q. B. 827; 2 New Sess. Cas. 582; 11 Jur. 306; 16 L. J., M. 7. In other Cases. The court will not grant a crim- | C. 84. Words spoken of a person, although they may contain serious imputations, are not sufficient ground for a criminal information, unless they are of such a nature as are likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Marlborough (Duke) Ex parte, 5 Q. B. 955; D. & M. 720; 1 New Sess. Cas. 195; 8 Jur. 664; 13 L. J., M. C. 105. a criminal information, no corrupt motive being expressly alleged; and they will not convert a civil into a criminal inquiry. Rex v. Friar, 1 Chit. 702. An information was granted against commissioners for exceeding their powers. Rex v. Rogers, 1 Ld. Ken. 373. But refused against twelve commissioners for pulling down a turnpike, on a suggestion of irregularity in the time and manner of the meeting. Anon, Lofft, 199. So, against a husband for endeav oring to retake his wife contrary to articles. Rex v. Lane (Lord), 1 ̊ W. Bl. 18. Upon a motion for a criminal information, it appeared that the applicant was an attorney, and an officer of the court, and the person against whom the application was made was a magistrate, and that the latter had assaulted the former in revenge, it was suggested, for his having conducted some proceedings against him on behalf a client, before justices, for a previous assault; the court refused to interpose its extraordinary protection to the applicant, but left him to his remedy by indictment or action. Reg. v. Arrowsmith, 2 D., N. S. 704—B. C. An information lies for a false re-ing. turn to a mandamus. Anon., Lofft, 285. But refused against a man who refused to serve the office of one of the sheriff's of London. Rex v. Grosvenor, 1 Wils. 18; 2 Str. 1193. The court granted an information against a person refusing to take on himself the office of sheriff, because the vacancy of the office occasioned the stop of public justice, and the year would be nearly expired before an indictment could be brought to trial. Rex v. Woodrow, 2 T. R. 7319. So, for embezzling money collected on a church brief. Rex v. St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, 1 W. Bl. 443. So, for burying a dead body found in a river, without sending for the coroner. Rex v. Proby, 1 Ld. Ken. 250. But granted for maliciously pressRex v. Webb, 1 W. Bl. 19. An information for a nuisance will be refused, if an application to the party is not shown. Rex v. Green, 1 Ld. Ken. 379. An information does not lie for a riot, if the parties did not disperse, and are within the penalty of the riot act : otherwise it does. Anon., Lofft, 253. Nor for pretending to read the riot act. Rex v. Spriggins, 1 W. Bl. 2. All persons by their presence countenancing a riot are liable to an information. Rex v. Hunt, 1 Ld. Ken. 108. So, for endeavoring to procure the appointment of certain persons to An information was granted for be overseers of the poor with a view attempting to bribe a privy counto derive a private advantage to the cillor to procure a reversionary patparty. Rex v. Joliffe, 1 East, 154, n. ent of an office grantable by the The surveyor of a high road hav-king under the great seal. Rex v. ing improperly expended a large Vaughan, 4 Burr. 2494. sum of money, borrowed by the trustees under an act of parliament, without the consent of the trustees, which the act required, to sanction the expenditure, the court refused An information was granted on the deposition of two persons, for the offering of a bribe by the defendant at an election. Rex v. Isherwood, 2 Ld. Ken. 202. |
