The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-12 00:00:00

THE CASE OF MADAME RACHEL.

Judgment was yesterday delivered by the Lord Chief
Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of " The
Queen v. Leverson." The cause was a very interesting
one, inasmuch as it involved particularly the conviction of
Madame Rachel, and generally the constitution of the Cen-
tral Criminal Court. Error was assigned on three different
grounds. First, that two commissioners being necessary to
constitute a court for the trial of indictments at the
Central Criminal Court, the same alderman was required
to act with Mr. Commissioner Kerr throughout the trial,
if it lasted for several days, and not a different
alderman on different days. The second ground
was, that as only one court was provided by the Act
there was no power to divide the court and sit in different
chambers. And the third ground was that Mr. Commis-
sioner Kerr had ceased to be a commissioner, and was
incompetent to act as judge under a Commission of Oyer
and Terminer for the trial of this indictment. The Lord
Chief Justice said the first was the onlyground of the three
that presented any difficulty, and it was upon that point
alone that the court thought it desirable to reserve judg-
ment. The court considered that ground of error
untenable. Two judges were required to sit on
the trial of every indictment, and a serious ques-
tion arose whether the provisions of the statute
had been complied with on this occasion. They were of
opinion that it had. The Commission under which the
Central Criminal Court was held was one of Oyer and
Terminer, and the language of the Act constituting the
court was the same as that used in the Commission of
Oyer and Terminer, under which justice had been adminis-
tered for centuries, and the Act must therefore be read by
the light of the procedure adopted in the superior
and other courts, held under such commissions, and in
doing so this court felt warranted in assuming that in
establishing the Central Criminal Court the Legislature
intended that the administration of justice there should
be conducted according to the universal practice of Oyer n
Terminer, and general gaol delivery. Everything seemed
to chew that under Commissions of Oyer and Terminer not
only were the courts divided into as many as were required,
but that each trial before each separate court was not
only before the single judge who was sitting, but it was
constructively tried before all judges acting under
the commission. That practice having prevailed
for centuries, the court could not suppose that it was the
intention of the Legislature that a different principle of
construction or course of practice was never intended to
he adopted at the Central Criminal Court ; and, therefore,
applying the inveterate practice of the other courts to the
Central Criminal Court, the presence of an alderman in addi-
tion to the single judge, wasnot required, and that a second
judge sitting with Mr. Commissioner Kerr was unnecessary;
the court were therefore of opinion that as, by the record,
it appeared that other members of the commission were
sitting at the same time and place that the trial took
place under such circumstances as to make the conviction
good and valid.