The Sun. — 1846-01-30 (London, England)

DENMAX—I think that in this case there ought not to he any rule. The indictment states what is certainly quite unnecessary; it states as a distinct fact that there was a murder committed on the body of Eliza Grimwood, and then it goes on to allege that an inquisition was held upon the body, and a verdict of murder by some person unknown wee pronounced It is quite immaterial whether this was so or not. The real question is, whether the libel spoke of her as a person who had been murdered. Notwithstanding this unnecessary allegation, and the proof unnecessarily offered upon this point, I think it was quite sufficient to show that there was an inquisition held on the body of a murdered person, called by the name of Eliza Grimwood. Mr. Carter, the coroner, proved that he held the inquisition. He produced a paper, which would not be admissible as an inquisition taken by him in order to found other proceedings upon it, but which was perfectly admissible to show that at the inquisition held under him he had noted down what had occurred; so that supposing it had been neceeeary to prove the allegation on the indictment, that there had been such an inquisition, the evidence of Mr. Carter would have been sufficient to establish that fact. The paper thus produced was not made the foundation of any other proceeding, but was a mere mode of identifying the persons and the names mentioned at the inquest; so that the objection raised to the admissibility of the paper does not apply here. With respect to the other part of the objection, I was snitch struck by the objection when made at the trial. Lord Coke's authority goes a great way to show that the description here given was an improper description ; for, from his Institute it appears that foreign titles cannot be noticed in English courts, and the safer way would have been to call the prosecutor by his name, and to add the title or designation Esquire or Armiger. I own I was at first disposed to think, that though this was merely a technical objection, is ought to be further discussed; and I should therefore hove thought we ought to grant a rule, had it not been for the case of the King v. Sully, which occurred in 1; 99. The prisoner there was indicted for stealing certain articles, the property of Selina Victoire Baroness Turkheim ; and the prosecutrix said that that was her title, and not part of her proper name, and that she was repnteet to possess, and did possess that title, in right of an estate she bad received from her father. The Court said, that all that the law required was certainty to a common intent, and, therefore, held her description in the indictment sufficient. There the mere title of the party appeared, and yet the Court held that that was sufficient, fir she was constantly known by the title given her in the indictment. The gee circumstances exist here. The prosecutor is not a reigninng prince, and there is another person who is the reigning iriince, still he is constantly known by this description, and the case .1 have referred to seems to me a direct authority for saving that he has properly described himself in this indictment. I am, therefore, of opinion that there ought to be be no rule. The other Judges eoncurred.—The rule-was refused. Mr. CocenueN then applied for the postponement of the case on the ground that the whole of the last term had been suffered to elapse without the defendant being called on to come up for judgment, and the notice he had now received to be brought up for judgment having only been given on 'Tuesday evening, he had not had time to prepare the affidavits he wished to lay before the Court in mitigation of punishment. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD (Mr. Wordsworth was with him) did not oppose the application if the Court thought it proper. 'rite COURT did think it reasonable, and the case was, therefore, ordered to stand over to next term.  BANKRUPTCY COURT, Jan. 29. (Before Mr. Commissioner FaisE.) 'swot-a...l'T