The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-04-27 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Tuesday morning, the
Attorney:General applied in the ease of the Queen u Thomas
yastro undo Arthur Orton, nhas Sir Roger fichborne. Bart..
to show canoe against a rule which had been obtained to
admit the prisoner to bail.—The following is a condensed

The Attomey•fieneral The true principle whieh
governs these applications is whether the pri.oner givis
inefficient security for Isle coining forward to take his
trial. If your lordshipii thiuk he does so in this case,
the Crown has no right, and certainly no wish, to
keep the man in prison.
After *ewe diecussion as to the authorities upon the

point,
The learned conneel said that both in the charze of
perjury and ferery the question w.. 111.1 be whether the
prisoner was really the person he represented himself
to be. The case on the part .4 flu prisoner at the re-
cent eis il trial was supported by a number of state-
ment.; excessively defamatory to other persons—state-
ments bringing them before the bar of public opinion,
and extremely offensive and painful to their feelings.
The alleged perjury was, therefore, one of the gravest
crimes of which a pereon could be guilty, and the al.
leged forgery Wan attempting, and successfully attempt-
ing, to raise money to a large extent on securities
signed in the name of a person whom the prosecutor
said was dead.
The Lord Chief Justice : If the perjury be estab
fished, I am of opinion it would be for more serious
than even the forgery, to which the law assigns a
much heavier punishment. As regards the buds, the
people advanced the money as a speculation, and in
many instances against the law which plohibits money
being subscribed for such litigation, and if it turns out
that they have been deceived, they will be entitled to
no sympathy. Whereas the perjury involves not
only an attempt to rob an innocent person of his birth-
right and inheritance, but also brings in question in a
most marked manner the honour, character, and con-
duct of more than one individual. Therefore, morally
speaking, to my mind the perjury is far more serious
than the forgery under the particular circumstance,
assuming always, of course, that it is made out.
The Attorney-General : I entirely concur in your
lordship's remarks on the two crimes. I should inform
the court that on the part of the prosecution it will be
necessary to bring witnesses from the other end of the
earth, as the evidence taken on commission both in
Australia and Chili cannot be received in a criminal
case.
The Lord Chief Justice : That is a very serious
element in our consideration, looking at the delay
which must nectesarily take piaCe.
The Attorney-General: But if a man commits a
crime 14,000 miles away and comes back to this country,
he must not complain if it be necessary to seek wit-
nesses from that distance.
The Lord Chief Justice: If the original charge .4
perjury were the only one we should not interfere with
the bail named by the Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, but the second charge of forgery, to which a
much more severe punishment is attached, would, if
the prisoner be conscious of his guilt, offer a greater
inducement to him to withdraw from trial. On the
other hand, looking at the probable lengthened im-
prisonment, is it right we should keep him in prison if
he can find reasonably sufficient bail?
The Attorney-General : I repeat that I have no
other wish than that the man should be produced at
his trial.
It woe here stated that the bail fixed by the Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas Was—the prisoner in
£5,000, and two sureties in £2,500 each, or four in
21,250.
In reply to the court, the Attorney-General said he
believed that the prosecution woula be prepared for
trial in November next.
Mr. Archibald also appeared with the Attorney-
General, but did not argue the case,
Mr. Serjeant Ballautine was beard in support of the
rule.
The Lord Chief Justice, in reference to the difficulty
of the jury in a felony case having to be locked up
during the progress of the trial, said he had heard with
great satisfaction that the Legislature would be asked
to alter the law on that subject.
Mr. Gifford (who with Mr. Montegu Williams also
appeared for the prisouer) briefly addressed the court.
The Lord Chief Justice, in pronouncing the judg-
ment of the court, sail they were of opinion that the
application of the prisoner should be acceded to.
Looking to the probability, as the couneel for the
defence had suggested. that the prisoner would
only be tried for pujury, to the fact that the
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas
had fixed the amount of bail for his appearance
on that charge, and also that many months must
delve before the trial, and that the extradition trea-
ties rendered the chance of escape much lees th
rnerly, their lordships thought that the bail eriginally
fixed was sufficient to ensure his appearing at the trial.
The prisoner would therefore be released on giving
that amount of bail.

It was arratiged toot the Crown should have forty-
eight hour& notice of the bail, in order that they might
have a full opportunity of inquiring into the sureties
offered.