[51] Samuel Goodere (1687-1741) entered the navy in 1705, served through
the War of Spanish Succession, but in 1719 was found guilty by a
court-martial of having been very much wanting in the performance of his
duty in the attack on St. Sebastian in the same year. He was temporarily
appointed to another ship for rank in 1733. He was then living with his
father, who had quarrelled with John; and apparently John had quarrelled
with his wife, who was supported against him by Samuel. The father's
will disappointed both sons, and John, having cut off the entail of his
estate during his son's life, after his death announced his intention of
leaving it to one of the Footes, a cousin of the actor, which probably
led to his murder. Samuel left two sons; it seems doubtful whether they
succeeded to the baronetcy. The elder died insane. The younger became a
poor knight at Windsor, and dropped the name of Goodere. He made himself
conspicuous by the oddity of his behaviour. He believed that a small sum
of money expended in law-proceedings would realise a fortune, and that
that money would be obtained through a wife. He therefore frequented
crowded places, and on seeing any woman or girl he did not know would
present her respectfully with a printed proposal of marriage. He died in
1809.
[52] Sir Michael Foster (1681-1763) entered Exeter College 1705, was
called to the Bar in 1713, and practised locally at his native town of
Marlborough. He became Recorder of Bristol in 1735, and a puisne judge
of the King's Bench in 1745. He enjoyed a great reputation as a master
of Crown Law, and was the author of the well-known _Discourses_ on that
subject.
[53] After mentioning certain obsolete rules relating to indictments,
Sir James Stephen says:--'I do not think that anything has tended more
strongly to bring the law into discredit than the importance attached to
such technicalities as these. As far as they went, their tendency was to
make the administration of justice a solemn farce. Such scandals do not
seem, however, to have been unpopular. Indeed, I have some doubt whether
they were not popular, as they did mitigate, though in an irrational,
capricious manner, the excessive severity of the old criminal law'
(_Hist. Crim. Law_, vol. i. p. 284).
[54] It is curious that Shepard did not take the point that the prisoner
was not described as a baronet, which he in fact became on his brother's
murder. Till recently such an objection would have been fatal.