Scheumack, a resident of another State, goes to Mobile to prosecute for libel, and Judge McKinstry grants him the writ accordingly. The Sheriff is represented as returning the same to the effect that the writ had been executed, and the defendant in jail on the 17th of January, 1859. Again, the trial docket and the records show that four bills were got against the defendant from the Grand Jury the November term, 1858, marked cases numbers 61, 62, 63, 64, corresponding to which are given the names of G. Y. Overall, C. F. Moulton, G. A. Cleaveland, and S. S. Scheumack; and that the name of Scheumack disappeared subsequently without any order being made or without any cause being assigned for the same; and furthermore four appearance bonds given by the defendant are found on file in the office. In these cases, there is no record of any action being taken by either Governor of Alabama or Mississippi, the reason for which, perhaps, may be accounted for by the innovation and wrong being too great for Governors’ names to be associated with on record. Now, it is evident, from the affidavit of Scheumack, that he did not get a bill at the time the other three did from the Grand Jury of 1858, and it is equally evident that he never afterward got one; then why was his case associated on the trial docket with the other three? The writ executed and returned asserts the defendant to be in jail on the 17th of January, 1859. What a farce! If the defendant was in jail at that time, it so mysteriously happened that he never knew it. A bond is found on file in the office given by the defendant to answer the charge preferred by Scheumak. What a farce! If the defendant gave such a bond, he never knew it—was never called on to sign it—never went before any examining magistrate, nor never knew, until a few days ago, that Scheumack had ever succeeded in any action of law against him. Ye prosecutors, answer, if you can, how the records are made to show that Scheumack got a bill from the Grand Jury of the November term, 1858, when his affidavit of January 17, 1859, shows conclusively that he never got any such bill at all. Answer, if you can, how his name so mysteriously disappeared from the trial docket without any order being made, or without any cause being assigned for the same. Answer, if you can, how the appearance bond relative to him and the defendant is found on file in the office, when no such bond could possibly have been given. Answer, if you can, how the defendant came to be in jail on the 17th of January, 1859, when thousands positively know that such was not the case. If “something rotten in Denmark” is not found here, it is vain to seek from any other quarter. CONCLUDING SKETCH OF THE TRIAL.