The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-06-05
MORE OF THE MRS. MAVERICK CASE.

The Journal has commented on some fea-
lures of this celebrated case but they are
not exhausted. 1t looks now as If 1t might
lead to an important amendment in English
criminal law. London dispatch, i'm the
Sunday Journal referring to Ambassador
Choates efforts in the case. said:
One of Mrs. Maybrick's advocates, a we'll
known worker of the Liberal party ]. r.
Levy. provided for Mr. Choate a specially
compiled brief of the whole case i'm the
collation. of which he received the advice of
the highest legal authorities in the kingdom
including the lord chief justice, Baron Rus
sell of Killowen, and Lord James. of Here
ford, attorney general to the Prince of
Wales, one of the calmest judicial minds.
who definitely states that the position taken
by Henry Matthews (the former home Sec
rotary, now Viscount Landaf) was absurd
and shows in the strongest light the present
confused state Of the English criminal law.
This allusion to 1.-The present confused
state Of the English criminal law may re-
fer to the fact that in England there is no
court of appeals In criminal cases. and no
provision for a new trial on any of the stat
utory grounds recognized in this country,
such as newly discovered evidence, error of
law occurring at the trial, verdict con-
trary to law or the evidence. etc. The theory
OF British criminal law is, unless it has
been changed very recently. that there can
be no reversal revision of the verdict of
jury. and. of course. no new trial. In 1892
a fund was raised by American women to
secure the opinion of British lawyers as to
the possibility of getting a new trial for
Mrs. Maybrick. A well-known firm of Lon
don solicitors were employed. who briefed
the case and presented ii to four eminent
lawyers for an opinion. These gave unan-
imous opinion that there Is no mode by
which. in this case, a new trial or a venire
de novo can be obtained. nor can the pris-
oner be brought up on a habeas corpus with
a view to retrying the issue of her. inno-
cence or guilt" They added: I'VE are
of the opinion that in English GRIM
inaI procedure there is posi-
case of felony where a verdict has been
found by properly constituted jury upon
an Indictment which Is correct in form.
The rule is in our opinion, absolute, unless
circumstances have transpired. and have
been entered upon the record which, when
there appearing would invalidate the tri-
bupal and reduce the trial to a nullity by
reason of its not having been before a prop
erly constituted tribunal" This. undoubt-
eddy. was correct statement of English
criminal law in 1892 At that time there
was no Court OF Appeal I'm criminal cases
in England and no provision for new trial.
and II is not known II there has been any
| legislation on the subject since. 1t seems not
unlikely that the Maybrick case may lead to
a change In this regard.
Allusion has already been made to the
| fact that the Queen OF England does not
possess the gardening power In criminal
cases. That pssroxative Is confined to the
horne secretary. though doubtless an ex-
pressed wish Of the Queen would be a man.
date to him II the Queen had wished to