Court Of King's Bench, We...
wteeArTORNSY.43ENERAL on the part of the defendant, moved, thatthconsideration ofthe rulevwhich had been obt,aned in thiq case might be postponed tilt next term, in order to allow the de- fendant timne to procurc 9lpaerS and documents. Mtr. ffuiNEy observed, that there was no ground for the appli- catiorn. The libela appeaFred in the Mlferitigz C1tronicle on the 7th of August, andon the 9th ofthat mnonth illr. Kenrick waited on the editor of the paper, and asked him to give up the author, and on hig refusing to do so, he vas informed that a ctiminal informnation would be moved for agaLinst him. He had, therefore, had ful time to obtain any papers which might be requisite. Besides, he had heard their lordships observe, that when newspnpersirserted libels they should always Tave thelr justificatien readv. Lord Chief Justice Aunoty..Thst is certainlythefeeling of the Court; but what have you to say to the enlargement of tbe rule? Alr. UIRTY observed, that the proseeutor would stand in a worse situation than at present, as the rule would be placed in the peremlp- rd (Ihief Justice AnsoTT.-Theo itt the sule be enlazged, with the underatanding that it is not to be placed in the peremptory PzPe% C..RT rose at 12 o'clock, and the Jjidge oceede. to the to M r ler ttzu nrumeis otcounsex on the writ of error tn Mr. Fauntlem.1w'A . - COURT OF KING'S BENCH, rtMgTRIMSTEt. Nov. 23. WHE KING, ON THE PZOSECUTIOX OF JTOHN KERNICK, EgQ,, V. TIXR. NMo1twKT .