
    * Anonymous.
    Where a practitioner m this Court held a paper, delivered to him by his client, which the grand jury were desirous of seeing, the Court held him not bound to produce it.
    Mr. Solicitor General Davis suggested to the Court that the honorable Mr. Dane, a counsellor practising in this Court, having been examined as a- witness by the grand jury, it appeared on his examination that he held in his possession a certain paper, purporting to be a promissory note, which, on behalf of the commonwealth, Mr. Solicitor was desirous to lay before the grand jury, believing that public justice might be promoted thereby ; but which Mr. D. had declined producing without the direction or advice of the Court; which the solicitor general requested might be given accordingly.
    Mr. Dane, being in Court, and having stated that the paper in question had been delivered to him by his client, to be used in the defence of an action now pending in this Court, expressed a willingness to deliver it to the clerk of the Court, to remain in his keeping, if the Court should advise him that it was his duty so to do.
   Per Curiam,.

We can give no such advice. This paper was intrusted to Mr. Dane, as a counsellor or an attorney of the Court. It is in the keeping of his c^ent, as much as if it were in his own pocket Non constat that it will ever be produced. The party may repent of his ill intention, and any crime contemplated may never be com mitted.

Note. — It seemed to be understood that this paper was a forged note, upon which the grand jury might have founded an indictment against Mr. D.’s client.  