case the king against beer juxta course signify the word themselves S c salk S  c salk S c Carth S c holt S c ld ray indictment against he for that he design  to subvert the government do compose make write collect and have in his  custody with a intent to publish several false and scandalous libel against  the king in one of which to hold together inter alian juxta course et ad  execution following set out the word themselves on not guilty the jury find  that quoad scriptionem et collection so much separalium a little book in  indict mentionat to be ind worthy of blame piout in indict to put below and as  to all other thing mention in the indictment not guilty and after several  exception in arrest of judgement the court deliver their opinion seriatim that  the indictment be sufficient and that there be a sufficient crime find in the  verdict to charge the defendant holt chief justice the objection to the  indictment be that the charge be not certain but only juxta course et ad  execution following suppose it have be ad disposition only I shall have be of  opinion that it have be too uncertain but juxta course render it certain  enough juxta as a preposition signify the same as secundum in the civil law  and so it do in the commonlaw as juxta form to cause to stand so in the case  of chapman v Dalton a then suppose secundum course be the word tenor signify  the very word as pron  interrog  tenor sequitur in hc word in debt on a bind  in the register b in a certiorari to remove the transcript of a record or fine  the king signify that he be Willing to be certify super course Finis which  prove copy and course to be the same so that juxta course do here signify the  very same word themselves or all exact transcript of the very word and if on  the trial the word in the libel have not be exact modern report the same with  the word in the indictment the defendant can not have be find guilty then if  juxta course be certain enough ad execution can make they uncertain for utile  per inutile non to make faulty this indeed be not the ancient formal way but  introduce of late year and the first time it be ever debate be in the case of  ford v Bennet b a Plowd   Ent b in the king bench in Hilary term car roll ld  ray modern report er p which be a special action on the case for prefer a  scandalous petition against he to king Charles the second ad course et  execution following and it be rule on debate to be certain enough and the same  be affirm afterward in the exchequerchamber and since that there have be  several precedent to the same purpose as the king v full c before I come to  the objection against the verdict I shall consider whether it be not criminal  to write a libel though a man be not the composer or contriver thereof and  certain it be a great and heinous offence a libel consist not in word and  scandalous matter only for that be not of itself sufficient though speak with  never so much malice but it be the put in write or procure to be put in write  for if the word be not write he be not guilty of the libel a libel as such be  a specific offence and it be the write libellous word and sentence that make  the offence and in all case where a man do a act which act cause the thing to  be what it be such a one be to be consider and construe the doer of it and  this rule hold as well in great offence as in small if a contrive treasonable  matter and dictate it to b and b write it it be treason in b as well as in a  if a Act of parliament make a felony as in case of rape or sodomy and say  nothing of abettor if b accompany a while be do the fact and guard the door b  be guilty of felony as well as a though the statute speak of the principal  only a so in all low offence procurer be principle as if a hold b while c beat  he a be guilty of the battery and it will be very strange if in this case only  he who contribute as much to the do of a thing as he that do it shall be  innocent and whereas lamb case b have be object that case must be expound by  the report of the same case in more c where it be report to have be resolve  that the writer of a libel be in judgement of law the contriver and then coke  case that he who be convict of a libel must be contriver procurer or publisher  be good law but otherwise not but modern report take it in its restrain sense  it will not affect this case for the question be not concern the write or make  the libel but about the publication thereof and they hold that the write the  copy of a libel as indeed write the original libel itself be no publication  thereof but only a evidence of a publication the question there be not how far  the write the copy of a libel be criminal but whether the write a copy be a  publication which indeed it be not if there have be a publication of it prove  it be evidence that it be by he that have it in his custody it have further be  object that there may be a lawful copy of a libel as a man may write out a  copy of a libel to carry it to a magistrate a student may take a copy of it at  the bar for his instruction all these thing I own may be lawful do but then  where a thing abstract be unlawful in itself there must be some other matter  to legitimate it which otherwise will be unlawful and that must appear to the  court upon evidence and then the party will not be convict beside if a man  lawful take a copy of a libel in a lawful manner that be no libel because it  be not ad disgrace of the party concern which every libel be Inst be a  apposite case there John de Northampton be charge with write only and not any  mention make of publication and write only be confess but the court be very  tender in their punishment in regard he be a attorney I need not go so far in  this case as to give any opinion whether the write a copy be a libel or no for  suppose it be not then it can not have be give in evidence against the  defendant for be be find guilty of write a libel that be a conviction of write  a original one if a copy be not a libel but indeed I think that the take the  copy of a libel be a libel because it comprehend all that be necessary to the  make of a libel it have the same scandalous matter in it and the same  mischievous consequence attend it at first for it be by this mean perpetuate  and it may come into the hand of other man and be publish after the death of  the copyer and if man may take copy with impunity by the same reason print of  they will be no offence and then farewell to all government the defendant have  have great favour in this verdict for when a libel be produce c Michaelmas  term will mary No ld ray see post a Inst b   c more modern report er p write  with the proper hand of a man and the author of it be not know this put the  modern report proof on he and if he can produce the composer the verdict shall  be against he and shall be as have as take one in possession of a horse that  be steal as to the second objection against the verdict that this amount to a  acquittal because the defendant be charge with the compose write and make and  be find not guilty of the make and compose he be also find not guilty of the  write or otherwise the verdict be repugnant and void as to this it may be  answer that write be a make but it be but one sort of make make be the genus  and contrive compose and write be the species of it then the find not guilty  of all but the write find he not guilty of any species of libel but write and  this notion of libel be as old as the law libel a private man be a moral  offence but when it be against the government it tend to the destruction of it  so it be in the civil law just Inst lib title de in an unjust manner and I  cite this authority because Bracton lib c S seem to have transcribe this  sentence from Justinian and therefore judgement ought to be for the king  Turton and Rokeby justice be of the same opinion as to the several point  relate to the indictment and verdict and cite some case to prove that the  write a libel without publish it be punishable in the starchamber hob pop    and afterward the defendant be fine five hundred mark and order to appear at  the session at Exeter and to make submission in a form of word to be prescribe  he but the last day of the term his fine be remit to one hundred mark