Reading Time: 4 minutes [563 words]

JAMES THOMPSON CALLENDER, 845

given of & prosecution by information against the Chevalier De Ou,
for publishing a libel against the Count de Guerehy, ambassador
from Franee. The prosecution was commenced in the Court of
King’s Bench. The information states the title, the name of the
Libel folly and literally, as it was published in French, and then
states the translation in English at full length. I ‘bring forward
these cases to prove what the practice is; and it is an observation of
one of the best judges that ever sat in the King’s Beneh, Lord Holt,
that “the form of pleading is evidence of what the law is.”

‘If, then, it be the practive to recite in the indietment the name, to
deseribe the title of the book, or libel published; if this has been the
invariable prastice ever since the unhappy prosecutions for libela
took place in that eountry—I believe there is no doubt but the title
of this book ought to have been stated in the indictment. I have
Jearned to think with diffidence, but I am firmly persnaded that the
attorney for the United States cannot give a single case from the
Engliah books of a contrary practice, And with reapect to prose-
eutions in the United States, I know not what the practice may be
in the few instances that may have occurred, It appears, too, that
snbstantial reasons, founded on principles of sound law, and sound
justice can be addneed in support of this practice. A principle on
which I rely to explain this practice to be eorreet, is, that it is a
universal role of law, that if a man’s words, spoken or written, be
made the foundation of a charge against him, the whole should be
taken together. If the whole writing charged to be libellous, be
stated in the indictment, it will be in the power of the defendant to
resort to other passages of the sama book to explain it. If the de~
fendant were indicted for publishing “The Proapect Before Us,” he
could resort to other parts of the book for an explanation. It was
the duty of the attorney for the United States to have done so; a3
he has omitted it, he ought to be precladed from producing it in evi-
dence. I will now state the other reason, in support of my cbjec-
tion to the admissibility of this book as evidence. It ia founded on
thia principle whieh hath always prevailed, or was supposed to pre-
vail in criminal law, that in all criminal cases, the offense should be
deseribed with all possible accuracy and precision. In felony, it is
necessary to insert in the indictment the goods and chattels alleged
to be stolen, ss well az the name of the person to whom they belong.
‘The reasons are furnished by the books, why this precision is deemed

Fema (4 the first, that the ” defendant may know the charge against
‘him, and be able to defend himself; the other, that he may plead the
conviction or scquittal in bar of a subsequent progeeution for the
same offense. (Hawkins’ Pleas of the wn, page 322).) The
defendant is charged with writing and publishing a libel of the fol-
lowing tenor and effect. And but very few passages are selected
from the books, which bear but a very little proportion to the ex-
tent of the whole of it. I ask, how is the defendant to know
whether these few passages were taken from “The Prospect Before
Us,” or from some newspaper, in which they have been republished
by some person, for whose conduct he was not responsible? Unless

Related Posts