burrow the king versus fillip Carteret web esquire the same against the same  Thurs that may SC black term impose on a prosecutor on quash a indictment the  defendant have be indict for perjury at hicksshall in January last and that  indictment remove into this court by certiorari he plead not guilty to it and  the cause be at issue and a special jury nominate after which the prosecutor  countermand his notice of trial but the defendant choose to bring it on by  proviso and it stand for trial at the first sit in this term in the interim  videlicet at the session next precede this present term the prosecutor get a  new indictment find at hicksshall and yesterday the first day of this term the  prosecutor counsel move for leave to quash their own indictment be as they say  insufficient and defective and have as they conceive supply those  insufficiencies and defect in their new indictment upon which they declare  that they intend to proceed as fast as they can but shall not proceed upon the  old one m it will be quite fruitless to do so when they know it to be  defective and they cite sir William Withipoles case in cro car and the case of  the king against John swan and Elizabeth jefferys in Mr justice foster book of  crown law p this motion be oppose by the counsel for the defendant who  endeavour to represent it as a mere artful scheme to keep up a frivolous  prosecution hang over a innocent man head without any real foundation and with  intention to slur his character and credit burrow the motion be adjourn to  this day and be now take up again and the point discuss it end in a rule by  consent that the new indictment shall in all respect stand in the place of the  old and all thing whatsoever remain in position quo exact as if it have be the  case of a amendment the rule be draw up in these words By consent of the  defendant in these cause now present in court and of Mr sergeant Glynn Mr  recorder of London Mr stow and Mr don counsel for the prosecutor of the two  indictment it be order that the first indictment be quash and that the second  indictment shall be substitute and put in the place of the first and stand in  the same condition to all intent and purpose whatsoever and the say counsel  for the prosecutor be call upon to name the prosecutor or prosecutor of the  say indictment declare that they be authorize by Mr James Philips the attorney  concern in carry on these prosecution to say that John Wilkes late of great  George street Westminster Esq be the prosecutor of the say two indictment by  consent of Mr sergeant Glynn for the prosecutor by consent of Mr  attorneygeneral for defendant by the court but the court declare their opinion  that a motion on behalf of a prosecutor for leave to quash his own indictment  be by no mean a motion of course more especial after have put the defendant to  expense or have be guilty of burrow er p unnecessary or affect delay and Mr  justice Wilmot cite the case of the king v more in sir I S where a indictment  for perjury have be remove by certiorari and the defendant have pay cost for  not go on to trial the prosecutor afterward move to quash it which the court  refuse unless he will submit to pay cost