GOODERE--Yes, Sir. Mr. Smith, I ask you what sir John Dineley's business was with you, and how much money were you to advance? SMITH--Five thousand pounds, Sir; and I told him that I was satisfied that it was a good title. GOODERE--I ask you if you knew him to be a knight and a baronet? SMITH--I can't tell; I never saw the letters patent. GOODERE--Can't you tell how you styled him in the writings? _Vernon_ objected to this, because baronetage must be derived from letters-patent, and therefore could not be properly proved by Mr. Smith's personal knowledge; and added that it was not material, because the indictment alleged that the person murdered was Sir John Dineley Goodere, and the prosecution would prove that he usually went by that name. To this _Shepard_ answered that if the person killed was a baronet, and was not so described, there was a misdescription, and the prisoners could not be convicted on that indictment. _Vernon_ then argued at some length that the necessity of setting out a personal description in an indictment applied only to the defendant, and that all that the law required in the description of the person on whom the offence was committed was a convenient certainty; and that a description by the Christian and surname sufficed. Besides, this was all begging the question, for as it did not appear in proof that the deceased was a baronet, he might, for all that appeared judicially, have been christened Sir John. Had we called the deceased in the indictment sir John Dineley Goodere baronet, then, Sir, we should probably have been told that we had failed in proof of the identity of the person, for that the baronetage was in its creation annexed to, and made a concomitant on, the patentee's name of Goodere, and waited only on that name; and that the deceased, considered as a baronet, was not of the maternal name of Dineley, and so upon the matter no such person as sir John Dineley Goodere baronet ever existed _in rerum natura_.[53] _Shepard_ pointed out that they could not be expected to produce letters-patent to show that the deceased was a baronet, because the prisoner had not been allowed to see, or to have a copy of his indictment; and that it was only on hearing it read that the defence became aware that the deceased was not described as a baronet. He therefore hoped that Goodere might be allowed to ask the question he proposed of Mr. Smith, who having been familiar with Sir John, and seen all his papers and title-deeds, must know the certainty of his title and degree. _The Recorder_ held that it was sufficient if the deceased was described by his Christian and surname; and that the question proposed to the witness was improper, for that it was not material whether the deceased was a baronet or not.[54]