The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-20 00:00:00

JUDGMENT.

The CHIEF JUSTICE then proceeded to deliver judg-
ment in the case of Mr. John Martin. In consider-
ingithe different' grounds of error which had been as-
signed, his Lordship stated that he would take them
in the order in which they had been argued at the
bar. The first was that the caption of the indict-
ment was defective in not having stated when, or before
whom the grand jury were sworn, in not stating that
they were sworn and charged to inquire tor our Lady
the Queen and the body of the county of the city of
Dublin. It was to be observed that the caption of the
indictment formed no part of the pleading, nor gas it
part of the indictment. It was a statement of the pro-
ceedings, and should describe the court where the in-
dictment was found, the time and place in which it was
found, and also before whom it was sworn, with sufficient
certainty. The Crown contended that this caption did
so, and such was the opinion of the Court. His Lord-
ship then referred to the authorities which had been
produced in supprrt of the objection, and expressed his
opinion that they did not sustain it, and that it was
sufficient if it appeared that the finding had been
on the oaths of the grand jury, even although
the words " sworn and charged were omitted to be
stated, and that it was not necessary that the caption
should allege this. The indictment had been found by
twelve men, because twenty-three names were men-
tioned. He was, therefore, of opinion that the first
cause of error assigned should be overruled. The next
objection was as to the counts of the indictment. It was
not necessary to decide on the objection to the two last
counts, and he would pass them by, merely with the
observation that they were conformable with the prece-
dents in indictments in high treason under the English
Act 34th George 111., of which the Act 11th Victoria
was a literal transcript; but the Court thought that the
other counts were not open to the objections which lied
been made to them. They were in the actual terms of
the Act, and he confessed he did not STC what more could
have been done than was found iu the indictment. The
crime was the design to depose the Queen, and the ex-
pressing
of that design, and the means used, that is,
the great art to effectuate it, were the publication of
the article, and no question had been raised in that
court that the article was evidence of the design, and
tended to its effebtuation. The cases in which the pre-
fatory words "of and concerning some matter and
person" were r,uuired were cases of libel and slander,
in which the words written and spoken required inuen-
does to explain their meaning; but this was not the case
where the design or intent was mot left at large or liable
to conjecture, and in this case there was not a single in-
stance in which it was necessary to explain the object or
intent by the inset tions of any inuetitto. It was in the
second place objected, that the publications sliould have
been said to be "felonious;" but he did not know how,
in propriety of language, they could have bet n _so tailed.
The word was properly descriptive of the intention with
which means were used, or acts done, but the instrument
—the gun, for instance, with which a murder was corn-
mitted—the article, in proof of felonious 'intent, could
be called felonious only by a misapplication of terms.
The third error assigned watt the disallowance of the