14
The Green Bag
during the time of the trial was sepa rated for a time from the rest of the jury. As this was a matter of fact, the court decided to hear evidence as to the circumstances under which the juryman was, in fact, temporarily separated from the jury, and what, if any, inter
course he had had with others than the ofiicers of the court during the time of his temporary illness. (The juror had
fainted and had been taken into the lobby behind the court.) The court found that there was no opportunity
for anyone from the outside to influence the juryman, that his illness was simply a fainting spell, that he was removed into a place where the venilation was better, that during the time he was
attended by a physician and the officers of the court and that no words were spoken to him with reference to the trial. 2. That the Crown was allowed to call evidence as to the date of Crippen’s purchase of the pyjama suit (part of which was found with the remains)
after Crippen had given evidence in his own behalf. The court decided that there was no
trap set for Crippen and that the Lord Chief Justice had rightly used his dis cretion in allowing the new evidence. 3. That the evidence as to the identity of the remains and the use of poison was not conclusive. The court held that the evidence was
ample to support the jury's verdict. 4. That certain phrases in the Lord Chief Justice's summing up were im
proper, or were not justified by the evidence. The court held that the Lord Chief Justice had adequately, fairly and fully
put the case for the prisoner. The appellate judges were unanimous in their decision on these several points. An interesting question was raised as to whether or not the prisoner should
be permitted to be present during the hearing of the appeal. Upon the ground that the appeal was solely upon
questions of law Mr. Justice Ridley prior to the trial, upon an application in
Chambers, refused permission for Crip pen to be present, but as evidence was given during the appeal upon questions of fact, Crippen was brought into the court and remained to the end of the proceedings. But a still more interesting feature of the Crippen case, and one which should commend the English system
to the people of the United States, is the action the court took upon certain interlocutory proceedings, based upon applications for rules m'si, to show
why certain newspapers should not be punished for contempt of court by reason of their having commented upon Crippen’s arrest, and upon the proba
bility of Crippen’s guilt. The first of these applications was made on Oc tober 13 against the Shelfield Weekly Telegraph, on the ground that the published paragraph "was calculated to interfere with the course of justice." The application was made to the Lord Chief Justice, who, having considered the paragraph, which was not read in open court, said that the applicant was entitled to the rule m'si but that he would not permit it to be argued at present. He added that there was nothing worse, so far as the press was concerned, than the occasional attempts it made, he supposed in order to gain popularity, by writing such paragraphs,
and the court would not hesitate to punish the publishers if such paragraphs amounted to contempt of court, but having regard to the character of the
case and that it stood for trial in the next few days, he did not think it
desirable that the application should be discussed at present.
