Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/118

 tra Cases ruled and adjudged in the 1790. jure the plaintiffs, uulefs fome material witnefs is abfent; which tar`: has not been pretended in the prefent cafe. _The rule for afpe- cial Court mult, therefore, be granted. Rssrontrca vnjiu Gntrrrrus. gr EAVE having been granted, on the motion of Serjezmt, to _ 3 ' L {ile an information againil the defendant, one of the]uf- tices of the Peace for C/:e_/kr County, it became a queftion, whether the information fhould be drawn, filed and profecu- ted by the Attorney General, or by the party at whofe in- itance it was awarded. The Attorney General {Brzuyirdj objeéled, that it is not the duty of the Attorney General to draw and {ile this informa- tion. It mult, indeed, be in the name of the commonwealth, and the rofecutor may make ufe of the name of the oilicer, who prolgcutes for the State : But there is in England a known and eilabliihed diflinétion, between informations filed by the Attorney General, and thofe filed by him at the relation of a private perfon, in the name of the mailer of the crown oliicc. - The former are always filed ex with ; and the Court will not, upon motion of the Attorney General, give him leave to file an information againll any perfon. 3 Burr. 1812. They cannot be ’ quafhed on motion of the profecutor. Doug!. 227. nor is the profecutor liable for coils. But informations, at the relation of private perfons, are in a great meafure private fuits. They are moved for and conduéled, not by the omcers of the Crown, but by counfel employed by the profecutor. The profecutor is, in many cafes, liable to coils. 3 Burr. 1:70. 1305. The Court will not grant it where the profecutor appears unworthy. Burr. 548. 869. And on a motion for an information for a libel, oath muil: be made of the _y‘2·4_M`!y of the charges contained in the libel, a circumltance quite immaterial, where the profecution is wholly on the part of the public. The profecutor, therefore, ought to be at the expence and employ his own counfel, in this proceeding, in which he is really intcrelied. lf it be the duty of the Attorney General to lile this information, it is his duty to profecutc it alfo. No informations (except thokqui iam) have hitherto beeniiled in Perarwloania ; and it is of confequence to fettle this point. No . fccs are provided for the duty, in the bill of fees, and the Attor- ney General ought not, on this occalion, to be conlidered as the more drawer of an information, for which he is not to be paid, and with the future profccution of which hc has nothing to do.B I

�