New-York tribune., 1875-02-02
CASE AGAINST A FORMER EDITION
OF THE LONDON TIMES.

| DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ssUIT OF RUBERY AGAINST
| sAMPsoN-CAUsE OF MR.. SIMPSONS RETIREMENT
| FROM THE LONDON TIMES.
| In regard to the developments in the case
OF Rubery against Baron Grant and Mr. Sampson late
financial editor OF The London Times where verdict
given against the last named defendant Mr. samp
wrote explanation 10 The London Standard In
| which he said:
Ny intention to retire from The Times long known to
my friends order interval Of relaxation
preparatory to a resumption OF relations WIN the pubic
another form. notified many months before was
aware OF the nature OF the Rnbery action In tne c3
binatons subsequently developed there mas oeen puo %
little power Ofinflcting annoyance upon one VINO mas tue
Consciousness Of having steadily worked 10 poteet ns
countrymen from the astnte ana elganuo @
OF the New-York and San Francisco rnSs ana OF baVne
in the diamond swnde alone according to the words OF
Mr. G6drd saved millions OF money to the people ake
OF England and the United States
The London Times published the following letter cor
| roofing Mr.. sampson's statement:
SIR: As MT Sampson. in letter which appears 10 two
least OF the newspapers OF to-day states that his In
tenIion To retire from The Times, long known to hls
friends, was notified" many months before ne was
aware OF nature OF Ruberys action, IL becomes my
duty the solicitor OF The Timers propretors, to say
lhat his resignation, though anecedent 10 the disclosure
OF the peculiarly TRANSACTIONS between nun a1 baIon ron
Grant, not the purely spontaneous act whieh MS
suggest, but took place as correspondence In my
possession proves uder cifcnns'anees ol
AeU Inn. jan 19
After tho verdict given against NJ. Sampson, The
London Times made the FIRST editorial reference TO the
subject. The following passages are taken from this
article
As between The Times and Mr. Rubery. the recent trial
gives us no But there another question
raised in ta question between the conductors OF TINS
paper writer OF its CITY Article, which we
approach wthouta feeling Of profound and unal
loyed modification. The case Of the pIaInti was That TINS
attack his Tustworhness was the result OF cOnspll-
acy between Baron Grant and Mr Sampson ana Though
the Jury did give him verdict this point the evi
dence extracted Baron Grant revealed relations
betwee him aud our late emplOye which we have re-
cetved with mingled astonjshInent and inclination. II
tnaff fnp IL haf
hut MI sampson had the opportunity, OF which no
did not avali himself OF suDseguehtN aten1g anu n
tween him and bis co-defendant, we are Justlhed
him m Wiat fbsr did B1ron Grant snYi IL was
that in the year 1s7l-we use the Lord Chief BaroDs
sums To- MI Sampson as free gifts recOup him for
losses and must be added that In 1872 he mad given
or % d no. amount to 1000 The Explanation Of these
gifts volunteered 10y Baron Grant, that Mr. Sampson
had adycntured IN some speculdtiOns on his recon,
mcndaiion which had proved unsucCessu, and he had
thought Ddennfy his friend against TIE losses
he had sustained. The Bar0ns generosity Is hleh-
minded yet it not indiscriminate Many per
must have lost money in specuations recon-,
TO lose it than Mr. sampson-yet Of all the mn
Lucky men aae s ESG% 1pe SeO he secced @ o nnm1y
was the writer Of the money articles IN The Times ne
himself 6ns ~ pr n TIS new ~Sef Seures 9y
10 the Stock Exchange. need say no more. Whether
Baron Grant hoped for anything ana whether ne got
anything, do not inquire But thls much we 90 tee
at liberty and, indeed, under the necessity to say that
allowing himself 10 enter INTO huCn ftldtlOno OF
obi cation TO financial agent, Mr. banp on be
fraVed the unbOunded that had been repcsed IN
hlm and that had any knowledge OF these transactions
reached us, there wOnd have been long since change
IN the authorship OF the money articles OF me Ilies
The and independence OF this paper must ever be
above suspicion, and the humiliation nave suffered
is hard TO bear-a hardship compared with which the
damages that have awarded TO Mr. Rubery are as
"A feather the air In connection with this, too, we
mdst protest against observation made by Baron
Grant In hls evidence. Baron Grant said that Mr. S1mp
son the editor OF the money articles OF me Hnts
and entitled by Of his position To aOtmeBts In
lew undertakings. II this means more hdn mat the
CITY tOr The Times presumably person Of careful
ba6its and responsible for his engagements so that
wnen ne applies shares they may be allotted TO hin
because he may 10 trusted TO hold them as oonande
investor, do not know hat we can quarrel win the
slatement-the CITY Editor OF The Times must have
the liberty Of investing his savings as other ptO
ple-but when Baron Grant goes on TO refer TO the
trouble Mr.. Sampson had to undergo In his position
we taC there sOme ground Tor the Interpretation
that has put language of tho wituesa-that
he was referring gratuiOus allotmCnts by way OF
Gifts of shares that quoted at premium before
any allotment had been made. Without linpntlug thls
meaning to Baron Grant, at liberty 10 say that II
such suggestion mad been made we sLoud regard IL as
offensive aud insulting aud the acceptance OF such ben
ellis wOuid Immediately determined the connection
Of MI Sampson with me Times.