Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1500

proceeding and also (7th Assignment) for that it is attempted, in and by the said indictment, by the improper and illegal insertion of foreign and extrinsic matter by way of inuendo, not only to enlarge and extend, but likewise to lessen and restrain, the natural meaning, import, and signification of the words in and by the said indictment stated to have been sworn and deposed by the said Edward Aylett: and also (8th Assignment) for that the several assignments of perjury, in the said indictment contained, do not, nor does any one of them contain any direct denial or falsification of the facts in and by the said indictment stated and alledged to have been sworn by the said Edward Aylett; but, on the contrary thereof, only falsify or deny such matter, as the same is explained, enlarged, and extended, or lessened and restrained by the improper, irregular, and illegal insertion of new extraneous matter by way of inuendo: and also (9th Assignment) for that the said Edward Lord Thurlow, lord high chancellor of Great Britain, had not, by the laws and custom of this realm, any power or authority whatsoever to administer the said oath in the said indictment mentioned, to the sail Edward Aylett: there is also error in this (10th Assignment), that is to say, that by the record aforesaid it appears that the judgment aforesaid was given against the said Edward Aylett; nevertheless, by the law of the land, that judgment ought to have been given for the said Edward Aylett.

To which assignment of errors a rejoinder was filed on the part of the defendant in error; and on the part of the plaintiff it was said (T. Erskine, G. Wood) to be very clear, that there are a number of disabilities and incapacities, which render a grand juror totally disqualified and incompetent for the duties of the office, and vitiate and de-[538]-stroy every indictment in the finding of which he has been concerned; and therefore the law requires, that the names of the jurors be stated upon the record, that the defendant may know who they were, and be enabled, by plea or otherwise, to avail himself of any legal disability or incapacity of such jurors, or any of them, without which a defendant would be deprived of that benefit which the law intended him to have and upon this objection indictments have been quashed.

On behalf of the crown, as to the 1st assignment of error, it was said (E. Beareroft, T. Cowper) not to be necessary to specify the names of the grand jury in the record of the caption; it is enough to aver, that the indictment was found by twelve good and lawful men. The party indicted has an opportunity of resorting to the original caption, where the names do appear. This objection has been frequently over-ruled in the court of King's Bench for more than thirty years last past; and if now allowed, would be contrary to the entries and precedents of record for more than fifty years last past.

As to the 2d and 3d assignments of error, it appeared, that the matter alleged by the indictment to be sworn was a violation of the oath taken; for the oath was, to speak the truth; and the matter sworn, according to the meaning of it found by the jury, was averred to be false, in the usual form of assigning perjury. It was apparent on this record, that the complaint to the lord chancellor was, that the said Edward Aylett was arrested in his return from attending the hearing of a cause in the court of Chancery, in which he was a party, to his own house, and before he had entered the same, which is contrary to law.

As to the 4th assignment of error, it did appear, that the complaint was heard: the swearing and the evidence by the said Edward Aylett shewed this.

As to the 5th assignment of error, it appeared, that the evidence was given in a judicial proceeding; for it was before a judge, who has authority thereupon to punish the offenders for a contempt, and to discharge the person arrested: there is therefore a judgment in law to be pronounced upon the facts sworn.

As to the 6th assignment of error, the purpose was expressly stated in the indictment, namely, "to cause and procure himself the said Edward Aylett to be discharged out of custody."

As to the 7th assignment of error, the meaning affixed to the expressions in the matter of the said oath, were not strained or unnatural, and were found in fact by the verdict.

As to the 8th assignment of error, the assignments of perjury falsify the meaning attributed by the verdict to the matter sworn, which is sufficient.

And as to the 9th assignment of error, it cannot be doubted that the lord chancellor has a power to administer an oaths in this case, since it has been the constant practice