The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-11 00:00:00

; them then examine into the character of those who had
I been called before them. First of all there was Mr.
I Brooke Greville, who had made such a statement as made
Some of their (the lawyers') mouths water with his profits of
35,000/. in fifteen years. But, first, he would take Mr. Gra-
, ham, and he would ask, was he a disinterested witness ? He
would not for a moment doubt that it was possible that a re-
spectable individual might be brought up from his infancy in
the world of play without injury to his enoral character, but
lie must say that Mr. Graham was not one of that sort.
He came, then, as a partisan—with a determination to
fix upon Lord De Roos a charge which might save the
character of his Club. He would have been very happy in-
deed to put a few questions to the waiters who had been called
in ; ow a previous stage of inquiry they had made application
for such an examination, and it was refused by Mr. Graham,
though they had asked that the inquiry should be made in his
own presence. How was it with the other side ? They
haul interviews—they had examinations at all times they
pleased. Was that giving fair play ? The prosecutor
had all the facilities afforded him of making his charge, while
the accused was kept in ignorance of all that was to he brought
against him. That was the conduct pursued by Mr. Graham,
and he would leave it for the consideration of the jury whether
it was not the conduct of a partisan. But that was not all—
he distinctly charged Mr. Graham with gross equivocation
in giving his testimony—not only so, but he charged
him with giving a false colour to the evidence
which he gave respecting the dissolution of the
Club. The Jury would recollect the manner in which he
gave his testimony on that subject. Could they for a mo-
ment doubt that the intention of that dissolution was not to
turn out those who were deep players, as was stated
by Mr. Graham, but the intention of that dissolution
evidently • was to get rid of a few characters who
were disliked by the Club, and Mr. Brooke Greville was one
of those whose names were omitted in the fresh list. The
criterion was not, as Mr. Graham stated, the deep play, but
merely the character which the individual had in the Club.
Then there was Mr. Higgins, who had found out certain prac-
tices at Brighton—there were upon that occasion four players,
not ono of whom had been called hut Mr. Higgins, who had con-
tinued to play with Lord De Roos after that occasion. That was
a damning fact to his evidence, for he, as a man of honour,
might be the partner of Lord Dc Roos by the chances of the
cutting—he, as a man of honour, could not possibly receive
any of the stakes which might be won by such practices as he
said Lord De Roos was in the habit of. Then came Cap-
tain Alexander. Why, what was he ? Most decidedly
a professed gambler, according to his statement when
upon his oath, who made his livelihood by the cards. It cer-
tainly was not in evidence that he dieted himself upon boiled
chicken and lemonade, which he understood was the proper
diet for a gambler, but it was in evidence—it was ac-
knowledged by himself, that he supported himself by
his play, and by it kept his station in the world.
Anything more daring than the conduct of Mr. Brooke Gre-
ville he (the Attorney-General) had never witnessed in a
Court of Justice. Not only did he speak of himself, but he
introduced to them a lady, and he said he invited Lord De Roos
and other gentlemen to his villa at Fulham, that they might be
of advantage to this lady. He spoke of having lost a sum of
three thousand pounds, and this he said with a view of showing
that he was fleeced by. Lord De Roos. Notwithstanding this,
he continued since 1829, on habits of the greatest intimacy
with him. He admitted besides having dined with him
saveral times after the 19th day of June, and on
one occasion went to his house, in the Regent's
park, so eager was he to mark to the world his intimacy with
Lord De Roos, that he invited him to his villa ; he showed
him his grounds, and he spoke to him most confi-
dentially of his own private affairs. He (the Attorney-
General), therefore, asked, was it not more likely
that he, Mr. Greville, was one of the conspirators
against Lord De Roos than that he was cheated by him,
Tho witness Brown, examined to-day, betrayed the great-
est anxiety to injure the Noble plaintiff, and he hesi-
tated to answer questions in order to give greater effect
to his assertions. He came there against Lord De Roos
at the instigation of Mr. Brooke Greville, who, as the witness
stated, made him tell the story to Lord Henry Bentinck.) No
other inference could be drawn from the circumstance
than that Browne was an instrument in the hands
of Mr. Brooke Greville. The other important witness was
Sir Wm. logilby and his account of the transaction showed
that either he was deluded as to the circumstances or that
he had conceived notions which were not founded on fact. He
(Attorney-General) asked why no one spoke of having seen
the precise act with which Lord de Roos was charged.—
The only other remaining witness of importance was Mr.
Payne, who, it appeared, was now in the second stage of
gaming. He' was formerly the dupe, now he makes money.
Mr. Payne, although he entertained suspicions of Lord
De Roos, played with him for a long period after-
wards ; and if, having a knowledge of his unfair plsy, he
did not publicly intimate what he had become aquainted with,
but played as his partner, be might have been indicted
for a conspiracy, for, upon his own showing, he was a
particeps crintinis in the transaction. Upon looking at
the case as it was in evidence, the Jury could not fail
to observe that Lord De Roos there stood in the situation of
one whose mouth was closed—who could not give evidence
on his own behalf. Why was not Major Fancourt
called to give evidence of the transaction at Brighton ?
On cross-examination it came out that he gave it out as
his opinion that nothing could be laid, as far as that affair went,
to the charge of Lord De Roos. He was not like
Mr. Holmes, at Constantinople, or at Copenhagen. He
might have been put into the witness's box, to state what he
knew of the transaction. As regarded the dealing of
the cards slowly, he begged the Jury to recollect the
evidence of the surgeon, of the doctor, and of the
coacinnaker, who spoke of the infirmity and weakness
of the joints with which Lord de Roos was afflicted.
The innocent Mr. Brown never saw a marked card, al-
though he had been a courier, had visited every capital
in Europe, and had been so long in the employment of the Tra-.
Yellers' Club. He described himself as a librarian. In his the
Attorney-General's country ( Scotland) the cards are called the
devil's book, and he believed Mr. Brown was librarian, be-
cause he took care of his Satanic majesty's books and journals.
Was it upon the evidence of this person that the jury should find
a verdict against the noble plaintiff. He (the Attorney General)
willingly bore testimony to the character of Mr. Charles Gre-
ville, a man of high honour, of great respectability, than whom
a purer minded gentleman was not to be found in any
society. But of gr. Brooke Greville he was bound to
speak differently. It was attempted to include Mr.
Charles Greville in the conspiracy against Lord De Roos, in
order to avail themselves of the value of his high reputation.
The Attorney-General proceeded to comment on the evidence.
(The Verdict will be given in a Second Edition, if in time.)