TRIAL AT BAR.

Evening Star, Issue 3128, 27 February 1873, Page 2

TRIAL AT BAR.

Late papers from England inform us that the charge of perjury against the Tichborne claimant is to be heard by “trial at bar.” As the proceeding known as “ a trial at bar” has been very rarely resorted to in modern times, a few explanatory remarks may be useful to the public. As a rule, a trial for a misdemeanor, if removed by writ of certiorari into the Queen’s Bench would be tried on the pleas or nisi i>rius side. This wa q done in the ease of a witness accused of psrjury in the notorious Godrich divorce case. A felony, however, when removed into the Queen's Bench, must be tried on the Crown side, and “at bar”—that is to say, before as many judges as are necessary for a sitting in banco. A misdemeanor, in a case of great difficulty and importance, may aso be tried at bar, though in a private pro.-ecutiou this is not granted as of right. In the present case defendant’s counsel originally applied for a trial at bar, expecting possibly that it would be opposed by counsel for the Uro* n ; contrary to that expectation, however, the Attorney General not only did not oppose it, but himself demanded it on the part of the Crown as of right The jury will, of cm r ;e, be a special one ; and as it is only too likely that a difficulty will be found in getting the sacred number of twelve into the box, it may be well to mention that there cannot be a talcs d - circumstantihus on a trial at bar, but a rule absolute will be granted for a writ of odo rel decern tales. One object of having several judges sitting together is to secure finality, there being no appeal to a Court of Error, except by writ of Eivor to the House os Lords, wl ich in 1814, reversed the judgment of the Q ie n’s Bench (Ireland) in the ease of the Queen v. O’Connell and others.