the caption as well as of the indictment properly so called. I need not cite any authority for this; it is to be found in the third page of Foster.* I did understand that before I came into court the officer said there was no caption; the fact however is, that my client has never had any copy of it.

Mr. Justice DowNES.-You do not exactly state what the officer said; he said the caption made no part of the indictment.

Mr. CURRAN. The fact is, that the prisoner has had no copy of it; and of that fact, if you think it necessary, he is ready to make affidavit. I know what may be said in answer to this objection, so far as it is an objection-Foster does say, that if the prisoner pleaded without a copy of the caption he is too late afterwards to make that objection or any objection turning on a defect in the copy, for by pleading he has admitted a sufficient copy. Now, my lords, having learned that the prisoner was not served with any copy of the caption, it was supposed that there was not any, and therefore it was thought improper to say anything about the matter before; it was conceived by the prisoner and his counsel, and rightly, that there must be such a record as on the entire of it would warrant the judgment to be pronounced by the court; reading this caption, such as it is, is a surprise on the prisoner and his counsel; they have therefore no opportunity of considering, on the foot of the caption as read and of which they had no copy, whether there may not arise an objection that might warrant an arrest of judgment. One objection strikes me on reading it—it does not name the jurors by whom the bill of indictment is supposed to have been found. The caption of the indictment in the case of the Rebels in 1746 does name the jury. If it should appear to the court that a man has been brought to trial and convicted where he has not in fact had the advantages which the law gives him for his information and direction, it would be for the court to consider whether by pleading over in chief, he shall be conceived to have waived those advantages altogether; that he has waived them in part is certainly true; he has waived them so far as regards the correctness of the copy; but whether it would follow that his pleading over is an admission that he had a copy in fact served on him, will be for the court to consider. Your lordships were pleased to intimate some inclination to let the prisoner be remanded and brought up some other day. Lord CLONMEL.-All the court meant to say was that they would yield to necessity.

Mr. CURRAN.-I did not mean to press it unless your lordships were inclined from necessity; but, there is one reason rather than any other, on which you might think it ought to be done; the prisoner has been most violently indisposed all day; he is at present in a state of body that renders any communication between him and his counsel almost impracticable; he has every symptom of malady and disease about him, as you might have seen when he was put forward.

Mr. PONSONBY.-The names of the grand jurors ought to be set out in this and every other case of the same kind; if the persons who found this bill were unqualified to act as grand jurors, it is no indictment. I could not have made this objection before, never having

* Ibid, p. 1, 228, 229.

seen a copy of the caption; your lordship will let us have time to consider this objection.

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.-The application to your lordship is to remand the prisoner, in order that he may have an opportunity of considering the objection that is now made. I am sure, to indulge my own feelings, I should be happy to grant what he desires; but it seems to me an application very needless, and what will produce no fruit. The caption is a plain one, and he has pleaded to it as sufficient, and has been tried on it; I hope you will now put the gentlemen to argue their objections, as the rule always is to argue motions in arrest of judgment when they are made.

Lord CLONMEL.-They have stated their reason-what do you say as to the caption not having the names of the jurors?

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.-I say it is not necessary, and has not been the practice; it is a record of the court which states that the jurors for our lord the King, have found a bill of indictment; when it is read, he pleads to it as a sufficient one. If the individuals of the jury furnish any objection, he should have taken advantage of it before plea pleaded-he might then have stated anything which he thought a sufficient objection to the return of the grand jury, or the circumstances affecting them-he might in other stages of the prosecution have availed himself of that objection. But though the names of the grand jurors were placed on the record, and a substantial objection to every one of them as grand jurors, and even though there were a substantial objection to the sheriff who returned the pannel, after plea pleaded he could take no advantage of such objections; because at the moment he pleaded, he admitted the sufficiency of the persons who found the bill and who returned the pannel; and it would be strange to admit that for error, which, if on the face of the indictment would not furnish a ground of objection, on which error could be brought or judgment be reversed; therefore it seems perfectly nugatory. You have the caption taken according to the practice of the court; but though it were not, it is not necessary it should appear on the face of the record for the reasons mentioned, and by pleading he has acknowledged it to be such as he should plead to. His having pleaded will not prevent him from having his objections to anything appearing on the indictment itself. But he admits that it is well found, and even if it had what he wants, it would furnish no ground for an arrest of judgment.

Lord CLONMEL.-My brothers wish to hear if you have any authorities to support the objection.

Mr. PONSONBY.-Then you wish us to urge it this day?
Lord CLONMEL. Yes, certainly. I believe it is lenity to the

prisoner to dispose of it as soon as possible.

Mr. PONSONBY.-As to the practice, I do not believe there is any practice upon the subject. I do not know that there has been a bill of indictment for high treason in this court for upwards of one hundred years past, therefore as to the practice, it would puzzle a man elder than any of the officers of the court to give any account of it. First, then it appears from Foster that the names of the grand jurors were set out in the caption. The Attorney-General has been pleased to say that by pleading we have cured this defect, if any it was.

But the first principle of the criminal law is, that a verdict cures nothing.

[Here the prisoner growing exceedingly faint, the court ordered the windows to be opened that he should have free air.]

Mr. PONSONBY Continued. The statute of jeofails does not apply. If it ever was error, it is error still. I humbly conceive, that you cannot be warranted to pronounce judgment, unless it appears that the bill of indictment was regularly taken and returned, as such bill ought to be. That the names of the jurors should be set out, is plain for two reasons, first that the prisoner might have an opportunity to object to them, as not being qualified to be grand jurors. Secondly, that he might have an opportunity of objecting to them, if they were called on the petit jury, because otherwise it is impossible for him to know who composed it, and these very persons who found the bill may be put on the petit jury. If it does not appear on the record that all things were legally done, the court cannot pronounce judgment. It is not sufficient to say that the charges are sufficiently laid in the indictment itself. It is not any answer to our objection to say that we do not object to the counts which charge the treason; but I say it is necessary that on the record itself, as it stands made up, all the circumstances should appear legally done. And if they do not appear so, the court cannot pronounce judgment. It is not merely on the indictment and verdict that the court pronounces its judgment; it is on the whole record. Suppose there appeared a plain, manifest and uncontroverted error in the caption of the indictment, could it be argued that the court would be warranted in giving judgment?

By this time the prisoner, having sunk upon his chair, appeared to be in a state of extreme debility.

Lord CLONMEL-If the prisoner is in a state of insensibility, it is impossible that I can pronounce the judgment of the court upon him. If Foster had not mentioned a like instance (the case of an old woman brought up to the Old Bailey) humanity and common sense would require that he should be in a state of sensibility.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL.-On that ground I have no objection to his being remanded; it was on the other ground that I objected.

Mr. CURRAN.-Your Lordship did the same in the case of the Walshes, father and son.

Lord CLONMEL.-I did.

[Here the Clerk of the Crown read the caption again.]

Mr. PONSONBY.-It does not state that they were sworn to try and enquire.

Mr. Justice DOWNES.-It is, on their oaths.

Here the prisoner becoming insensible, Doctor Thomas Waite, who was present in court, was desired to go into the dock to him. He after some examination informed the court there was every apprehension he would go off immediately.

Mr. THOMAS KINSLEY, who was in the jury-box, said, he would go down to him; he accordingly went into the dock, and in a short time informed the court, that the prisoner was certainly dying. The court ordered Mr. Kinsley to be sworn.

He was sworn accordingly.

Lord CLONMEL.-Are you in any profession?

Mr. KINSLEY. I am an apothecary and druggist.

Lord CLONMEL. Can you say you understand your profession sufficiently, so as to speak of the state of the prisoner?

Mr. KINSLEY.-I can. I think him verging to eternity; he has every symptom of death about him.

Lord CLONMEL.-Do you conceive him insensible, or in that state, as to be able to hear the judgment, or what may be said for or against him.

Mr. KINSLEY. Quite the contrary. I do not think he can hear his judgment.

Lord CLONMEL.-Then he must be taken away. Take care in sending him away, that you do not any mischief. Let him be remanded until farther orders, and I believe it much for his advantage, as for all of yours, to adjourn.

The sheriff informed the court that the prisoner was dead.

Lord CLONMEL-Let an inquisition, and a respectable one, be held on the body. You should carefully enquire when and by what means he died.

The court then adjourned, and the body of the deceased remained in the dock, without being moved from the position in which he had died, until nine o'clock of the following morning, May 1st, when an inquisition was held upon a view of the body. Surgeons Hume and Adrian were examined; they opened the body and found near a pint of acrid matter in the stomach, which was entirely corroded; but the bowels were not at all affected, the matter not having passed to them. Mr. Hume was of opinion, the matter in the stomach was a metallic poison, that it caused the death of the deceased, and that no diet could have occasioned such appearances as the stomach exhibited; it was impossible the deceased could survive, the matter being of such a mortal nature, as appeared from the symptoms.

Mr. GREGG, the gaoler, was also examined; he said the deceased was visited by Mrs. Jackson, in the morning, before he was brought up to the court-witness went into the room, and perceived Mr. Jackson much agitated ;-he said he had taken some tea which always disagreed with him, when his spirits were depressed; immediately after which he vomited very violently.

to wit.

INQUISITION AND VERDICT.

County of Dublin, AN INQUISITION indented taken and held for our Sovereign Lord the King at the place commonly called or known by the name of the Court of King's Bench, in the said county of Dublin, the first day of May, in the Thirty-fifth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King Defender of the Faith and soforth, before George Hepenstal, Esq. one of the Coroners of our said Lord the King, for the said county, on view of the body of the Rev. William Jackson, then and there lying dead, upon the oath of John King, William Gibton, John Brooke, Christopher Halligan, Thomas Saunders, John Plunket, Francis

Hammil, Thomas Mangan, John Ellery, James Byefield, John Keane, and James Murphy, good and lawful men, of the said county, duly chosen, and who being then and there duly sworn and charged to enquire, for our said Lord the King, when how and by what means the said William Jackson came to his death, do, upon their oaths, say, We find that the deceased William Jackson died on the 30th of April, in consequence of some acrid and mortal matter taken into his stomach, but how or by whom administered is to the Jury unknown.

A paper, of which the following is a copy, was found in the pocket of the deceased, in his own hand-writing.

Turn Thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted!

my

The troubles of my heart are enlarged, O bring Thou me out of distresses!

Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins! Consider mine enemies for they are many; and they hate me with a cruel violence!

O keep my Soul, and deliver me. Let me not be ashamed, for I put my trust in Thee.