The trials of Samuel Goodere, Esq : Matthew Mahony, and Charles White, for the murder of Sir John Dineley Goodere, Bart. (brother to the said Samuel Goodere) on board His Majesty's ship the Ruby / [Samuel Goodere].

Goodere, Samuel, 1687-1741.

Date:: 1741

Credit: The trials of Samuel Goodere, Esq : Matthew Mahony, and Charles White, for the murder of Sir John Dineley Goodere, Bart. (brother to the said Samuel Goodere) on board His Majesty's ship the Ruby / [Samuel Goodere]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

17/60 (page 13)

$his true Name ; which fhews the Law is not fo over-curious in the manner of defcribing Per- fbns: and, if I miihike not, it has been held that even the Iiididee himfelf can take no Advantage of a Miftake of his Surname, if his Chriftian Name be right, and he be o- thcrwife defcribed with convenient Certainty. Befides, Sir, this is begging the Queftion \ for it does not appear in Proof that the Deceafed was a Baronet, he might for aught ap- pears judicially to the Court Jiave been baptized by the Name of Sir John. Baronet- tage as a Patent-Dignity we know is Matter of Record, which is a thing proveable only by itfelf •, therefore if they would have taken any advantage of it, they fliould have iiad the Letters Patent of Creation, or an Exemplification of them, at leall En Poigne^ (as the Law terms it) ready to produce in Court: and for an Authority in point. Sir, I beg leave ]uft to mention the Cafe of Sir Richard Grahme (Titular Lord PreftonJ, he was indided as a Commoner, and objefted that he was a Lord, and as fuch triable by his Peers. But Lord Chief Jullice //<?//, and other Judges then prefent, acquainted him they could take no judicial Notice of his being a Lord (though they themfelves called him fo out of Courtefy when they Jpoke to him) unlefs he produced the Patent of Creation or a Copy of its Inrollment, bccaufe Matter of Record fo his Objeftion vauiflied, and fo I hope will this Gentleman's. Had we called the Deceafed in the Indiftment Sir John Dinelcy Goodere Baronet, then, Sir, we fhould probably have been told, that we had failed in Proof of the Identity of the Perfon, for that the Baronettage was in its Creation annexed to and made a Concomitant on the Patentee's Surname of Goodere., and waited only on that Name, and that the Deceafed confidered as a Baronet, was not of the maternal Name of Dinele)\ and fo xipon the matter no fuch Perfon as Sir John Dineley Goodere Baronet ever in Rerum Natura. Mr. Shephard. Mr. Recorder, Mr. Vernon fays it does not appear that Sir John Dine- ley was a Baronet, and that we ought to produce the Letters Patent to Ihew him fuch ; I think it a pretty hard Objecftion, confidering that by Law a Prifoner cannot look into his Indiftment, nor have a Copy of it, in order to be advifed thereon. Here it comes out only on hearing the Indiftment read, and the Perfon killed is therein defcribed by the Name of Sir John Dineley Goodere only, without adding the Title Baronet ; fo that it was impofllble for us to be prepared with the Letters Patent, or with any Evidence of his being a Baronet; therefore humbly hope we are proper in asking this Queftion of the Witneis Mr. Smith, who was fo converfant with the deceafed Gentleman, had the Perufal of his Writings, all his Title-Deeds lay before him, fo that he cannot but Icnow the Cer- tainty of his Title and Degree. Mr. Recorder. It is a great miftake to fay, that it is neceflary to fet forth in the In- dictment the Addition of the Perfon on whom the OtFence is fuppofed to be com- mitted ; the Law requires no fuch thing, and the Prifoners liitfer no manner of Inconve- nience by leaving out the Addition ; becaufe on this Indidfment if tlicy Ihould happen to be acquitted, or fliould be convifted of Homicide under the Degree of Murder, they may plead that Acquittal or Convidlion in bar of a fecond Profecution for the fame Fact, •with an Averment that the Party mentioned in both Indidments, tho' under difterent De- fcriptions, was one and the fame Perfon : It is fufficient that the Deceafed is defcribed by his Chriftian Name, and the Surname by which he was commonly called. TJie Queftion propofcd to the Witnefs is improper; for it is not at all material in the prefent Cafe, Whether Sir John was a Baronet, or no. I would not deny the Prifoners any Advan- tage they are by Law intitled to, but I cannot admit of Evidence which can ferve only to amufe. Mr. Goodere, Have you any more Queftions to ask this WitnefsMahony, have you any Queftions to ask ^ [Both JiknL] {Morris Hobbs (vioxn.) Mr. Vernon. Mr. Hobbs, I think you are the Landlord of the White-Hart Alehoufe. Hobbs. Yes, Sir. Mr. Vernon. Pray whereabout is the Houfe Hobbs. Over-againft St. Augujline*s Church. Mr. Vernon. Can you fee Mr. Jarrit Smithes Houfe from tlie Window of yours ? Hobbs. Yes, Sir, very plain. Mr. Vernon. I prefume you are not unacqiuinted with the Prifoners Faces ? Hobbs. I have feen the Prifoners feveral times. Mr. Vernon. I would not lead you in your Evidence, but would be glad you'd give an account to Mr. Recorder, and the Jury, whether Mr. Goodere (the Gcndeman at the Bar) applied to you about coming to your Houfe; if fo, pray tell us when it was, and upon what occafion Hobbs. The 12th of January (which was on Monday) Captain Goodere and Mahcny came to my Houfe Captain Goodere asked my Wife, Have you good Ale here ? She faid, yesi he alfo asked. What'Place have you over iiead ? I anfwered a Clofet, a Place E where$