The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-11-30 00:00:00

THE TICHBORNE CASE.

On Friday, at the sittings of the Queen's Bench, in
Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Blackburn, and Mr. Justice Mellor, this case came on
again. The object of the application was to settle the
question as to the mode and time of trial. It had been
removed from the Central Criminal Court for the pur-
pose of obtaining a special jury. It was then found,
however, that a difficulty arose as to the duration of
the trial, special jury CR9rs being ordinarily taken out
at Term, and the statute (1 William IV. cap. 70) re-
gulating trials out of Term limiting the time to 24
days, 12 here and 12 at Guildhall. Thereupon, an ap-
plication was made early this Term, on the part of the
defendant, for a trial "at Bar,"—e.e , a trial at the Bar
of the Court, which may be held in Term, and under
that Act may be continued out of Term for any period
appointed by the Court. It is the privilege of the
Attorney-General, as representing the Crown, to ob-
tain • trial at Bar in any case in which the Crown
undertakes the prosecution, as is the case in the pre-
sent instance, and accordingly—as was now stated—
there was such a trial in Ireland) where the law is
similar—in the case of Mr. O'ConnelL The applica-
tion in the present case now came on to be disposed of.
The Attorney-General appeared on the part of the
Crown, and said as it was his privilege in such a case
as this to obtain a trial at Bar' as a matter of
course, on his own application, he thought it right to
appear on this application, although he had withdrawn
from the conduct of the case, to intimate that on the
part of the Crown he assented to the application.
There were, no doubt, extreme inconveniences in a trial
at Bar; but, on the other hand, there was one great
santage attending it —the advantages of finality,
wrich it was peculiarly desirable to obtain in the
present case. It was very doubtful whether the trial
could be held in a way so advantageous without a
special Act of Parliament, and there were natural ob-
jections to a special Act being obtained for the purpose
of a particular case, as it bore the appearance of an
or post facto law. On the whole, he thought the reason
of convenience predominated in favour of the appli-
cation, and therefore he assented to it, so far as it re-
lated to a trial at Bar.
The Lord Chief Justice assented to these obser-
vations, observing that it was the right of the Attorney.
General.
Mr. Justice Blackburn, however, observed that he
should be disposed to think that the practical in-
conveniences of a trial at Bar predominated over the
advantages.
Mr. Serjeant Sleigh, who (with Mr. H. Browne)
appeared for the defendant in support of the appli-
cation, wild that as it was assented to on the part of
the Crown, ef course he withdrew his application.
The Lord Chief Justice: Then all that now remains
is to make the beet arrangement possible for the trial
of the case. As to this—for reasons I mentioned the
other day—it seems impossible that the trial should be
held earlier than the commencement of next Term,
and as it would be necessary to wait until the first few
days of these are over, during which motions for new
trials &remade, it could not come on earlier than the fifth
day of Term. The continuation of the trial after Term
will be the next question which will arise for the con-
sideration of the Court. As t.) this, the difficulty that
will arise is as to the Spring Circuits, which, after
Teem, require the attendance of most of the Judge&
However, that must be considered in due time.
Mr. Hawkins, QC., who, with Mr. Serjeant Parry,
appeared for the prosecution, said be need do no more