Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-12-10
The IFichborne Case.


Tie London correspondent of the New York
World says: At last! The claimant is to have
his trial for perjury; and as if to pile sensation
upon sensation, he is to be honored by ga trial
at bar, procedure hitherto reserved in modern
times for only the most important state trials.
The whole Of this Tichborne business, at least
in the eye OF q layman, has been from the start
most wretchedly managed on the part of the
government. Last summer when the claimant,
upon his nonsuit IN the civil suit, was commit
ted to Newgate and there indicted for perjury
and forgery, there was really no good reason
why he should not have been Immediately tried
before a common jury at the Old Bailey, like
any other accused person. If the government
really had good case against him, it is all non
sense TO talk of the impossibity of concluding
such a trial in a reasonable time. There would
not have been nor is there now-the slightest
necessity for reopening and trying again the
question of whether the prisoner was or was not
Roger TichbOrne. That was the pOintinvolved,
it Is true, in the indictment for forgery, but
that indictment need not have been nor is now
TO be tried. The indictment for perjury was SUI
feient, and all that wolld have been or now
is necessary was 10 show that the accused had
sworn that he was in certain place at a certain
date, while, in fact, neither Roger Tichh0rne
nor Thomas Castro were at that place at that
time This, it is understood, can be easily
+
that at q certain date be was in certain place
in company with the then Miss Kate Doughty
and her father; and it can be shown, The gov
eminent say, that neither Roger TichOorne, nor
Kate Doughty, nor her father were within
hundred miles of that spot at that time. The
first mistake of the government was in remOv-
ing the trial from the Old Bailey TO the Queens
Bench. The reason assigned was that it was
expedient TO try the case by special jury, which
could not be had at the Old Bailey. But why
was a special jury necessary? Was the case Of
the government Of such a character that it re-
quired for lis comprehension the superior Wis
dom of a special Jury? Or was it supposed that
would be less likely to sympathize with the
prisoner than common jury taken at random
from the inhabitants of the city? | am told
that the latter was the real reason. But be this
as il NAV, the removal of the case to the Queens
Bench threw an air of dignity and importance
about the prisoner, and everything that has
since happened has tended to increase this
effect. Then came the applications for ball. I'M
wisely resisted by the government; and then
the starring tour of the claimant aud his bottle
holders, Mr.. Onsow, NJ. p, and Mr.. Whalley,
NJ. p. Finally the month of November began,
and the government, instead OF moving IN the
matter, did nothing, and allowed the claimant
to press for trial and TO appear in the light OF
a person anxious for tie ordeal from which the
Government shrank. No sooner was this app-
cation made than the government discovered,
what it should have known before, that the case
could not be tried before the Queens Bench,
simply because it could not be finished before
The end of the term, and there was no power TO
continue the term. Then there was a PROPOSE.
ton TO move the case back to the Old Bailey,
but, before this could be done the attorney gem
eral appeared yesterday before the lord chief
Justice and justices Blackburn and Mellor OF
The court OF Queens Bench, sitting in banco,
aud awaiting himself oil Il legal right demanded
for this case "a TRIAL at bar, and that a day
shall be fixed for the trial" The Judges had
no choice but TO yield TO the demand and it
now only remains to fix the day when, for the
trial Of a man for the crime Of perjury, three OF
the first Judges of England shall, perhaps for
month, sit together, depriving ali the rest of
her majesty's subjects of their services for that
lime.
But what is this trial at bar-this mysterious
and Anticipated procedure? In the first place,
1t is a trial not before single judge, but before
at least three OF the Judges of the court in which
the action is brought. The Telegraph says.
1t is the original form in which all cases were
heard before the court of Queens Bench. THIS
tribunal, according TO the theory of the law,
represents the judicial authority of the sOyer-
ei9u, and in reno e days the king actually adj
mmstered justice in person, Is Judge by virtue
of his kineship. ~ degrees, however, as the
business Si the law became too unwieldy 70 be
managed by any one court, commissions, lcens-
es, and warrants were issued. by which ind-
vidua Judges were intrusted with delegated au-
thOrity 10 hear and try cases. But all those
delegated authorities are rigidly circumscribed
by conditions as TO DURATION jurisdiction, aud
so forth, In other words, the court of Queens
Bench, sitting, not as a court, but as the court
of royal justice, possesses latitude Of action
not accorded TO any inferior tribunal, Thus
the difficulties as to vacations, terms, commits
sions, adiournments, which threatened to
impede the successful trial of the Itch
borne cause under any ordinary process. do
not apply to a trial at bar, When once the full
court Of Queens Bench has taken up "The Queen
VS.. Castro" there is nothing, except the improb-
able contingency of the death of one of the
Judges during the hearing of the case, TO hinder
it from being carried on from day 10 day for
any length Of time. PROFESSIONALLY, as the at
torney-geueral pointed out, an act Of parliament
might have been passed empowering any court
before which the suit was heard to sit prospect
i've ai all rules as to terms and sessions. Parlia-
ment can make any laws it thinks fit. But any
such legislation facilitating the Trial of a pris-
oner who without this change in the law might
have escaped trial owing 10 the difficulty Of
forming court, would have had an &c post fdctO
character hardly in accordance with justice.
The counsel for the defendant had applied for
trial at bar. The advisers of the crown were
understood 10 oppose the demand on the plea
that "the very sufficient and strong grounds"
deemed requisite for resort to this cumbfous
procedure did not exist in the present instance.
Yesterday MI. Sergeant Sleigh was to have
shown cause why Il rule should be granted for
The trial at bar of "lhe Queen VS.. Castro
while Mr.. Hawkins and hls colleagues were to
oppose the request. When the court met, how.
ever, the attorney general announced that he
should himself apply for a trial at bar, Si
John COerdge dwelt with emphasis on the TACT
that he intended 10 take no further part of any
kind in the prosecution of the claimant, and
that he only appeared on this occasion
as the legal adviser Of the crown
By usage and precedent the attorney.
general is entitled to trial at bar, as a matter
Of right; and the lord chiel-iustice dismissed the
subject rather CURLY, with the remark that all
the court had to do was to grant the application
without considering its eXpediency or ineXpedi-
ency. AS a question of policy it would have been
easy to show valid grounds against the suggest
ed procedure To have a trial at bar in order 10
decide the yeracity or mendlcity of the reputed
Sir Roger, is rather like setting a team OF horses
to draw perambuator. The waste of judicial
power involved is OF very serious kind. There
is absolutely no reason why the issue whether
tue claimant has or has not committed perjury
should not be tried with perfect satisfaction be-
fore any one OF the bench of judges. No very
intricate points Of law are involved in the deci-
SION, and no possible reason can be alleged
why "Ihe Queen vs.. Castro" with its incalcu-
laGle array Of circumstance and detail, should in
itself mOnopoize the time and attention of more
than one OF our scanty staff of judicial AUTHOR
lilies.
And even now there must be further delay.
The "triaI at bar" cannot take place without
gross injustice to thousands of other sutors,
until next Easter term, aud in all probability ii
will not he ended until about June list. There
will be a special jury and three judges, and the
only comfort in the matter is the thought that
between them they may possibly, once for all,
put an end to the iichborne case.
The Great Diamond Fraud.
A San Francisco disDaich snvs: j. b Cnnner,s