The Attorney-General said, he would now, with their lordships’ permission, propose to read the card, upon which their lordships had been pleased to say that they would consider whether it was admissible or not. On being asked by Lord Brougham whether that was his case, he replied, that he should first wish to know whether the card was to be received or rejected. Sir William Follett requested to see the card; and, having examined it, he said he did not think it necessary to object to its being read. It was accordingly delivered in and read. Upon one side was engraved “Captain Harvey Tuckett, 13, Hamilton Place, New Road;” and on the other was written “Captain H. Wainwright.” The Attorney-General said that that was the case on the part of the prosecution. Sir William Follett.—“This being the case on the part of the prosecution, I venture to submit to your lordships, that there is no case which calls on the prisoner for an answer; and I think your lordships will see at once, that the counsel for the prosecution have failed in proving an essential part of their case. My Lords, I apprehend it is not necessary to cite any authority to show that the prosecutor is bound to prove the Christian and surname of the person against whom the alleged offence is committed; and that if he fails to prove either the Christian or the surname, he fails in his case. Now, there is no evidence whatever to show that the person against whom the shot was discharged was Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. The evidence before your lordships would rather lead to a contrary presumption, if presumption could be acted upon in a case like this. I apprehend that positive evidence must be given to prove the identity of the party. The evidence is this,—the counsel for the prosecution have called a person named Codd, who is an army-agent, and who receives the half-pay of a Captain Tuckett, who was formerly in the 11th Dragoons, and is named Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. Is there anything in this evidence to identify that Captain Tuckett with the person alleged to have been on Wimbledon Common on the 12th of September? Mr. Codd does not know where that Captain Tuckett lives; he never saw him except at his office in Fludyer Street, and at an insurance office. What is the rest of the evidence on this point? A person who lives in the Poultry says that a Captain Harvey Tuckett rents offices of him, but that he does not know where he lives. There is, therefore, not an iota, not a scintilla of evidence, to connect that Captain Tuckett with the gentleman supposed to be engaged in this transaction. I therefore submit that my learned friends have entirely failed in an essential part of the case for the prosecution. I would beg leave to refer your lordships to the case of the King v. Robinson, in Holt’s Reports, p. 595, in which it is laid down that it is essentially necessary to prove the Christian and surname of the party against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, and there is