Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1880-08-03
THE TICmBORNE CASE.

Arthur Orion, the celebrated claimant
of the Tichborne estates in England, is
doomed, it seems, to serve out both
terms of the sentences originally imposed
upon him. He felt confident that the
legal proceedings. lately instituted in his
behalf, would result in his release, and
his friends shared his confidence. The
decision Of the Court Of Appeals, how
ever, recently rendered, destroys what
ever hopes he and bis friends may have
entertained in the matter. This decision
is Of interest in this country for two rea-
sons. First, because it is directly con.
trary to a decision rendered in the Tweed
case by the highest court of the State of
New York, in which the same question
was involved ; and, second, because the
leading counsel for the claimant was Mr..
Judah P. Benjamin. once the most bril-
liant member of the bar of America, and
now in the front rank of the legal pro-
fession Of England. In the Tweed case
there were several counts IN the indict-
mems, on each one of which the defend
ant was convicted. The court sentenced
the accused on each count to a term OF
imprisonment. When the first term had
about expired proceedings were taken for
the prisoners release, on the ground that
o.nx.fak,xa aan%onoao xpara ,naoaf Thu
Court Of Appeals held that the ground
was well taken and ordered the release
OF Tweed. This case formed the basis
of the proceedings in the Arthur Orion
case. In the indictment against him
there were two counts, On each of which
he was sentenced TO seven years c%ontine-
ment In prison. When the first sentence
expired. Mr.. Benjamin undertook to eff
feet his release by authority of the de-
cision in the Tweed case. He made a
very able and ingenious argument. but
failed to convince the court. In his de-
%cision, Lord Justice James used the fol-
lowing language:
The case in the American court has been
relied upon as establishing a restriction
upon it Chat it applies only to sentences
on different indictments D, and we are
told that II was on the authority Of that
case the late Attorney General granted his
fat for y writ Of error in the case before
us In that case it was laid down that the
law does not allow Of cumulative sentences
being imposed on conviction for several
misdrmeanorr charged in different counts
in . single Indictment. in the aggregate ex-
ceeding the punishment prescribed by law
as the extreme limit of the punishment for
the particular misdemeanor. M such
language is t. be fonnd in any case in Eng
lish law books. Why are we to follow that
decision. and put this restriction on the
law hitherto laid down? / have always
felt unfeigned respect for the decisions OF
the courts in America upon matters of Law
common TO their Jurisprudence and ours;
but l confess hat I was startled by the
mode in which the judges in the case cited
dealt with the question. But on what
principle or reason did their dissension
rest? / am unable to discover any; and,
at all events. the one suggested in argu-
ment Ia startling il not shocking, for it
was this. that, il a man commits an offense
OF SO grave o character that the utmost
punishment allowed by law for it is too
light. he ia to be free to commit any num-
Der OF offenses with absolute impnnity il
he Is tried before the expiration Of his SEN
tence. and with comparative immunity il
his trial is postponed until he has fulfilled
his sentence under the first. thus giving
him all the chances Of escape which the
lapse Of time would allow. To my mind
such q proposition is startling. No author
ity for it is to be found in English law. and
there Is In my opinion. no foundation for
and 1t seems to be that the judgment
Of the American court proceeded upon q
view different from that 81 our courts,
that different nffsnses should not be pros
In the same Indictment.