The Sun. — 1848-11-20 (London, England)

JUDGMENT.  The CHIEF JUSTICE then proceeded to deliver judgment in the case of Mr. John Martin. In consideringithe different' grounds of error which had been assigned, 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 indictment 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 proceedings, and should describe the court where the indictment 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 Lordship 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 mentioned. 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 precedents 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 expressing 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 prefatory 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 inuendoes 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 instance 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 cornmitted—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