to be a magistrate, the court refused to grant it, saying that they did not see their way clear enough, to treat this as a misdemeanor. Ex p. Chapman, 4 Ad. & El. 773; and see R. v. Weltje, 2 Camp. 142. But where the proprietor of a newspaper published a statement of the evidence given before a coroner's jury accompanied with comments, the court granted an information against him. R. v. Fleet, 1 B. & A. 379; and see R. v. Fisher et al., 2 Camp. 563. R. v. Lee, 5 Ex p. 123. So, where a criminal information being about to be tried, the defendant distributed hand-bills in the assize town, vindicating his own conduct, and reflecting upon the prosecutor's; and this matter being disclosed to the judge, at nisi prius by affidavit, the trial was put off: this affidavit being returned to the court of King's Bench, they granted another information against the defendant for what he had thus done. R. v. Jolliffe, 4 T. R. 285. So, where the defendants, members of a corporation, procured an order of the corporation to be made, and entered in their books, stating that A. B. (against whom a jury had found a verdict, with large damages, in an action for a malicious prosecution for perjury, and which verdict had been confirmed in the Common Pleas), was actuated by motives of public justice in preferring the indictment: the court held it to be such a libel reflecting on the administration of justice, for which they would grant a criminal information. R. v. Watson et al., 2 T. R. 199. For libels on persons high in office under government, or in parliament, see R. v. Haswell, 1 Doug. 387, or high in rank, see R. v. Gregory, 8 Ad. & El. 907. R. v. Haswell, 1 Doug. 387, or which may otherwise come under the definition of scandalum magnatum, if written or printed, see 1 Com. Dig. Action on the case for Defamation, B. 1, &c. 4 Com. Dig. Libel, c. 4, the court will grant a criminal information. Even for libels against private individuals, if attended with circumstances of great aggravation, the court will grant a criminal information, as where a libel accused a gentleman of being concerned in a monopoly in the East Indies, which produced a famine, and occasioned the deaths of 30,000 persons; R. v. Miles, 1 Doug. 284; or where a libel accused a gentleman's daughter of indiscriminate connection with the other sex, and that she went up to London to be delivered of a bastard child, and had afterwards come back to pursue her profligate courses. R. v. Brinfield & Saunders, 2 Burr. 980. So, for publishing a ludicrous account of a marriage between an actress and a married man, they have granted an information. R. v. Kinnersley, 1 W. Bl. 294. So, for publishing writings in this country, which tend to degrade, revile and defame persons in high power in foreign countries, the court will grant a criminal information, particularly where such publications tend to disturb the pacific relations between the two countries. R. v. Pettier, Holt on Libel, 78. R. v. Ld. Gordon, 1 Russ. Cr.

C. 233. R. v. Vint. Id. So, for printing or publishing blasphemous libels, see R. v. Woolstan, 2 Str. 834. R. v. Carlile, 3 B. & 4. 161. R. v. Waddington, 1 B. & C. 26. R. v. Paine, 1 East, P. C. 5, or obscene publications, R. v. Curl, 2 Sir. 788. R. v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 2527.2574, the court will grant a criminal information.

For challenges to fight, breaches of the peace, &c.] For sending or knowingly delivering a challenge to fight, to a judge, justice of the peace or other magistrate, for any thing alleged to have been done by him in the execution of his office, the court will grant a criminal information. So, for sending or delivering it to a person high in rank, or high in office under government, or to a member of parliament, the court will in most cases grant a criminal information. See R. v. Younghusband, 4 Nev. & M. 850. And in all cases where they would grant an information for sending a challenge, they will grant it for inciting or provoking such a person to send a challenge, or to commit a breach of the peace in other respects. In the like cases, also, the court will grant a criminal information for an assault, or battery, or the like.

In other cuses.] The court have granted a criminal information for attempting to bribe a privy counsellor to procure for the party a reversionary patent of an office, which was grantable by the king under the great seal. R. v. Vaughan, 4 Burr. 2494. Also for offering a bribe, at an election for members of parliament, the court have granted a criminal information. R. v. Isherwood, 1 Ld. Ken. 202. R. v. Pitt, 1 W. Bl. 323. The court will grant a criminal information against a man, for refusing to undertake a public office, such as that of sheriff, or the like, where the vacancy of the office may be likely to occasion an interruption of public justice. R. v. Woodrow, 2 T. R. 731; but see R. v. Grosvenor, 1 Wils. 18, 2 Str. 1193.

The court granted a criminal information against a man for spreading false rumours for the purpose of raising the price of hops, and for ingrossing large quantities of hops; R. v. Waddington, 1 East, 142; against a captain of a man of war, for refusing to allow a coroner to go on board to hold an inquest. R. v. Solgard, 2 Str. 1097, Andr. 231. So, for bribery at the election of an alderman, who by his office was a justice of the peace, the court granted a criminal information. R. v. Steward, 2 B. & Ad. 12.

So, in gross cases of public indecency, the court will grant a criminal information; as where a person of rank exposed himself naked in a balcony in Covent Garden, to a crowd of persons who were in the street looking at him, the court granted a criminal information against him, and he was heavily fined. R. v. Sir Charles Sedley, 10 St. Tr. Ap. 93, 1 Sid. 168.

с

Where a gentleman induced a music-master to assign his female apprentice to him, ostensibly to receive lessons from him in music, but really for the purpose of prostitution, the court granted a criminal information against the gentleman, the music-master, and the attorney who prepared the assignment. R. v. Delaval, 3 Burr. 1434.

And generally, in all cases of misdemeanors of a gross, notorious, or atrocious nature, for which an indictment would lie, the court will grant a criminal information.

In what not.] But an information will not lie for an offence committed on the high seas, R. v. Baxter, 2 Str. 918, or abroad. An information has also been refused, for not collecting money on a brief; R. v. Ford, 2 Str. 1130; for converting brief money; 1 W. Bl. 443; against a private person for reading publicly a pretended proclamation; 1 W. Bl. 2; against a clergyman, for perjury in the oath against simony, upon being inducted to a living; 1 Str. 70; for an offence against a private statute; 1 Burr. 385; against members of a corporation, for a misapplication of the corporate funds; 1 W. Bl. 542. R. v. Watson et al., 2 T. R. 199; against a person for not taking office in a corporation, not being resident in the borough. R. v. Denison, 2 Ld. Kenyon, 259. Also, the court will not grant a rule for a criminal information, where a former rule against the same party for the same offence was discharged, even although the second application be made upon additional affidavits. R. v. Smithson, 4 B. & Ad. 861. See R. v. Eve et al., post, p. 28. Nor will they grant an information for an offence immediately against the Queen or her government, or where the rule is moved for by the attorney-general on behalf of the crown; for he may himself file the information ex officio. R. v. Mayor of Plymouth, 4 Burr. 2087.

Not where the prosecutor has adopted another remedy.] Where the party has already taken legal proceedings for the offence complained of, the court will not grant a criminal information for it. And therefore where, upon an application on behalf of an attorney, for a criminal information against another attorney, for assaulting him in consequence of proceedings taken by him professionally, it appeared that the applicant had already taken out a warrant against the other party, on which he had holden him to bail; the court on this account, although the applicant offered to abandon the former proceedings, refused to grant the information, saying that as the applicant had commenced other proceedings, they thought it best that he should be left to the course he had already adopted. Ex P.

4 Ad. & El. 576, n. But where, upon an application for a criminal information for an assault, &c. it appeared that the defendant previously, in a conversation with the prosecutor,

told him that the first time he should meet him in the street, he would assault him, and the prosecutor answered that the moment he did so, he would give him in charge to a policeman; that upon meeting him afterwards in the street, the defendant struck him; upon which the prosecutor called for a policeman, and a policeman came, but not having seen the blow given he refused to interfere; afterwards however, upon the defendant admitting the assault, the policeman took him into custody, and took him to the station-house, where he was detained two hours until he found bail for his appearance before the magis. trate the next morning; but when he appeared accordingly, the prosecutor declined going into the charge there, saying that he would take his remedy before another tribunal: this matter being stated as cause against the rule, the court said that there was no doubt that if the complainant had already adopted a regular course of what might be deemed legal proceedings, he could not come to that court for a criminal information; but here, the defendant having told the prosecutor he would assault him whenever he met him, the immediate step which the prosecutor took must be considered merely as a security against a repetition of the assault; and as no excuse appeared as to the other facts, the court made the rule absolute. R. v. Gwilt, 11 Ad. & El. 587. So, if the applicant have brought an action for the act complained of, the court will not grant a criminal information, at least not until the action has been discontinued. Ca. temp. Hardw. 241. R. v. Sparrow, 2 T. R. 198; and see R. v. Mahon, 4 Ad. & El. 575.

Not where the prosecutor himself is to blame.] The court will not grant a criminal information for sending a challenge, if it appear that the applicant had also challenged the defendant, R. v. Hankey, 1 Burr. 316, or challenged or threatened to challenge another person engaged in the same transaction. R. v. Larrien, 7 Ad. & El. 277. So the court refused an information for striking a magistrate in the execution of his duty, where it appeared that the magistrate had struck first. Ca. temp. Hardw. 240. So the court refused to grant an information to one set of cheats and gamblers, against another set of the same description. R. v. Peach, 1 Burr. 548. So, where an application was made for a criminal information against the editor of a newspaper, for a libel on a jury, it was shown in answer that the foreman of the jury had afterwards written a recriminatory letter to the defendant, and forwarded it to be published in other newspapers, couched in most violent language, and signed by him for "self and fellow jurors :" this was holden a sufficient answer to the rule, as far as it was deemed the application of the foreman; but as the application was by four others of the jury also, it became a question whether the rule should not be made absolute as regarded them;

they had made an affidavit, denying all acquiescence in the foreman's letter. and all knowledge of it, until after it had been sent; but because they had not disavowed it, the court discharged the rule altogether. R. v. Lawson, 1 Ad. & El. N. C. 486. But where the marquis of B. made an application for a criminal information against the editor of a newspaper, for a libel upon him, his wife and children, in which it was stated that at the time he married his present wife, he had another wife living by whom he had issue, and that a suit was then pending to annul the said marriage and bastardize the issue by it; this was denied in the marquis's affidavit, but he admitted that he had cohabited with the lady alluded to in the libel, before his marriage, and the affidavits on the other side, one from the lady herself, threw great blame on the marquis as to his conduct in his connection with her, although they did not otherwise confirm the statements in the libel: the court held, that although the marquis might be too much inculpated to demand a criminal information himself, yet that the rule should nevertheless be made absolute for the protection of his family. R. v. Gregory, 8 Ad. & El. 907.

Not upon contradictory affidavits.] Although in the granting of a criminal information, the court are substituted for a grand jury, they will not grant it, where there is a fair or reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant; and therefore they will not grant it, where there are contradictory affidavits as to any material part of the offence imputed. Therefore where an application was made for a criminal information against the magistrates of a borough, for having disfranchised persons entitled to their freedom, and which the applicants swore to have been done to serve election purposes; and on the other side this motive was wholly denied, and the defendants swore that they thought there was legal ground for the disfranchisement, and which ground had not then been decided: the court refused to grant the information. R. v. Doire, 2 Doug. 588. Where one Digby obtained a rule nisi for a criminal information against the editor of a newspaper, for a libel, imputing to him cheating at cards, and he positively denied the imputation in his affidavit; but the rule was discharged, upon the single affidavit of one Shepherd, that the imputation was true: afterwards Shepherd, in depositions made by him in a suit in the ecclesiastical court in a different matter, contradicted his former affidavit in all particulars; whereupon Digby indicted him for perjury, the bill was found, but he absconded: Digby then made a second application for a criminal information for the libel, on an affidavit of the above facts, and of his innocence as before; and the court granted the rule. R. v. Eve et al. 5 Ad. and El. 780.