New-York tribune., 1875-02-06
A JOURNALIST ON TRIAL.

IN TIE LONDON TIMES-COMMENTS OF OTHER
LONDON JOURNALS.
IFRoM raE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT or rHS TRibuNh'I
LONDON. Jan, 10-At last we have the verdict IN
the great libel case of Rubory againSt Grant anu
Sampson. Ii has occupied the Lord Cher Baron Oh
The Court of Excheoucr with q special jury during
ten days. or nearly a month, If we count ADJOURN
ments. The verdict is for the defendant Grant and
for the plaintl Rnbery against the defendant Samp-
son With $3.50 damages. The meaning OF the ver-
dict. like the verdict itself is twO-fold. Ii means
first that Rnbcrv was dupe and not an accOmplicc
in tbe great Diamond Fraud and that rs Sampson
in the money article of The Times accused him OF
being an acccmpcc, he is entitled To damages for
that false accnsation and this although the enter
prise with which he was connected was. by his own
admission and by the admission of everybody else,
swinde. Rubery has succeeded in vlndicating MS
character under one Of the most searching invesh-
cations TO which any man was ever subjected NO
body doubts that The 1imeS did great service 10
the community in exposing the Diamond Fraud
But it made mistake in including Rubery IN It's
denunciaticns. and has to pay-suppoSing t1e NeI-
dict to standS2 800 for its mistake, plus about ten
times that sum-Or it may be twenty times OF more
in the shape Of costs The verdict means secoholS
that Baron Grant has not been proved to have In
stigated or paid for the publication OF the particular
articles containing the libel.
The answers to the larger questions involved IN
the trial are much more interesting and mucR more
painful. What those questions were explained at
length in former letter. and shall only rcState so
much of the substance of them as will make the re-
suit clear. The plaintiff alleged that at the very
first interview he ever had with Grant, Grant told
him be had Sampson under his thumb, and that he
could do what he liked with the money article OF
The Times. Grant, suppose l need not remind
anybody, is that Baron Grant whose name is SO
dear to us in America as the tnancer of the Emma
Silver Mining Company. MerwaTd, Grant and
Rubery Qu.rrclcd. and Rubery says Grant threat
ened to use his influence with Sampson to crush
any undertaking Rubery should bring ont. ltwas IN
pursuance Of that threat rs the plaintih alleged
that he was al .acked by Sampson i'll The Times III
two money articles appearing in 1872. In support of
this allegation he called Baron Grant himself, who
contradcted plumply what RubeTy had said about
their Conversations and denied that he had used or
sought to use any improper influence over Sampson.
But he was finally obliged to admit that in ISL
the year before the lbels-.he had paid Sampson
various sums of money amounting t. $l2,j10, and
that these payments were without any considera-
tion whatever The only explanation he could give
of them was that these were intended TO recon-
pense Sampson for losses sustained by bin in an in
vestment made five years before upon Grants re-
commendaton. In the following year. 1872, the
year in which the libels were published, other large
sums were paid by Grant to Sampson, equally with
out constellation. To use the language of the Lord
Chief Baron in summing up to the jury:
profess myself utterly incompetent 70 form an orin-
to . ulIa ~ m s, or onv Of these niIero1s aud
l1ree OF money lssng from tue nand~ OF Baron
Grant into the of Mr. Sampson have pat them
10 Won I'm tlis Wv II clearly appears that when very
much pressed. Baron Grant would undertake TO
eWear--aLd should be sorry TO tbnk tBat ne
would swear 10 ANYTHING which lot and winch he
did not know TO be strictly cOrrrct-that in each OF these
years 1870 1871 and 1872 Ia ge sums Of money ana many
sums money had not Dceu paid. think with regard
10 1872 he would not deny that 1t mgL. amounted
even $500 orto 10000. which had been paid INTO
OF OF those did appear in evidence that any
lcneBt or any consideration pecInary or or any
considerable OF az KIND, had passed from MI Sampson
10 Baron Grant.
Baron Grant further testified that he considered
Sampson, by reason of his position as money editor
of The 1imcs entitled to alotments of shares IN new
undertakings. or to the premiums on them without
nllOtmcnts; that this was custom, and, IN Baron
Grants judgment, laudabe custom This was all
there was in the way of evidence against Grant.
The Lord Chief Baron pointed out that notwith-
standing all this there was no direct evidence that
Baron Grant had bribcd Sampson TO write these
particular articles lie might havo given him money
in large sums; the money might have been given
70 influence the money articles in The lines but IN
the Lack Of direct proof that it was given to inst-
gate these particular articles containing the libel
against the plaintiff Rubery, the defendant Grant
was entitled TO a verdict. So strict is tue law Of
England respecting evidence. We need not quarrel
with 1t in his case though it secures the acquitta
Of a man who avows that he thinks il laudable
custom to bribc the financial editors Of the London
papers Public opinion will render verdict of its
60,
the Judgment which l formerly hoped might not
need 10 be pronounced against him. When | last
wrote the hearing Of the case had been adjourned
and said that thought no opinion ought to be eX
pressed till Sampson had had an opportunity to ex
plain 10 the jury and tho public the extraordinary
transactions between Grant and himself or to deny
them if lac could. He has had the opportunity and
has not used it, he heard or read the evidence Of
Grant and let the case come to an end without
going on the stand. Why is he not called queries
the Lord Chief Baron. Bat one answer is possible.
He has nothing to say in his own defense or moth
ing which be thought had chance of surviving q
cross-exaInination. Since tie conclusion of the
trial, he has written letter which or two Of
the morning papers publish, denying that either the
name of Rubery word in connection with him
had ever passed b tween Baron Grant and himself
Respecting the payments of money he says:
Several years previously 1871 the loss had occurred
tcrval he had repeatedly alluded and in 1871 he
urged that shOui allow hnD, out OF such commits SONS
felt he was actuated by sense OF support and sym
pathy had accorded TO him in a prev Gus period OF
inucn anxiety against many unjust attacks aud ac-
ceded to II. HouCc the history OF the checks.
As to other payments Sampson declares:
TIE whole Of my OF or financial Transactions with the
Barop during the ten years have known hm Intimately
have been tour IN number, and these wholly ire
spective OF any literary relations
And upon stock llotments-Baron Grants lauda-
BILE custom7-the language of the late money editor
Of The Times is as follows:
As 70 any mystery raised about aoments of stock It