New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-12
A JOURNALIST ON TRIAL.
CASE OF THE LATE cry EDITOR OF THE
LONDON TIMES.


LONDON TIMES.
SUIT AGAINST BARON GRANT AND Mr.. SAMPSON
THEIR FINANCIAL rRANsACrIoNs-A QUESTION
OF UNDUE INFLUENCE TO BIZ SETTLED.
iFRoM REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF TIE rRIsusEI
LONDON, Dec A-The libel suit of Mr.. Rubery
| against Baron Grant and Mr. Sampson Ii one which
threatens to affect English journalism very graveiy
have postponed any comment on it because 1t
seemed due to Mr.. Sampson that he should have an
opportunity of explaining the evidence against him.
But the holidays have come the case has been ad-
journedito Jan. II Mr. Simpsons counsel has opened
for the defense in a speech of - columns. the
testimony for the defense has been partly heard and
| Mr.. Sampson tas neither caused explanation TO
be offered by his counsel seized the first occasion
10 take the stand himself and confront the
tiOns against him. lie knew of course that the case
must go over and it may be inferred that Mr.. Samp-
| son thinks it more advisable to let the evidence
| against him stand unanswered One suggestion,
| however, may be made in his favor. The suit is
really defended by The Times, of which Mr.. Samp-
son was till lately the financial editor. He may not
have been able to insist that statement should be
made IN his behalf or to control the order IN which
testimony was to be submitted. But whether the
delay be hsmsfortune or his choice, the facts must
| be stated
Rubery's action grows out of the great diamond
1
America to need recapitulaton. 1t is enough to
recall the fact that was exposed here in the money
| article of The Times and to mention that Rubery
vase of the persons accused-drecty or Indirectly
by The Times of completely in the affair Alleging
! that he himself was dupe ana that whether what
was said Of Others true or not it was not true
as against him, Rubery brings this action for libel
BE did not see fit TO sue The Times, which would
have seemed the natural course. He sued Mr..
Sampson as the author Of the articles, and Baron
| Grant as an instgatOr of them That part of the
case to which referred as affecting English jour
nalsm is the testimony of Rubery and of Baron
| Grant concerning the relations between Grant and
| Sampson / may assume that Grants name IS
| famhar-only too famIliar-to the American public.
| His peculiar reputation his peculiar talents in the
| bringing out of companies and the peculiar fate
| which overlook some of his companies, became
matters Of peculiar interest to rs because one OF
those companies was the Emma Mine.
What Rubery swOre to is this: that in a conversa-
ton at which he was present, between Baron Grant
| and Harpendinp touching the failure of a former
speculation. the Pyramid Range Company, Baron
Grant said to Harpending: " If you had come to me
you would not have failed. He then said he could
do what he liked with the money article in The
| Times. That he had Sampson under his thumb"
quote from The TmeSs report, and the following is
| from the same After that matter was settled
Grant said Ito Harpendng) that if he used certain
| information he had or worried him any more he
would use his influence with Sampson to crush any
undertaking that he might bring out in the City of
London" Upon neither of these statements was
| the plaintiff crOss-examned by Mr. SIMPSONS conn
sell though upon other points he cross-examined
| at great length. BY Baron Grants counsel he was
cross-examined on them but does not seem to have
/ been much pressed, OF to have been shaken at all
He gave particulars as to the conversation, who
| present, and so on.
| But whether this be believed or not, other test-
mony followed which it will be difficult to dscredit
| Baron Grant himself was rut on the stand by the
| plaintiff and his evidence is very remarkable and
very painful to any who cares for the interests
| of journalism as profession. Baron Grant in the
| first place denied having had any conversation with
| Rubery about Mr.. Sampson. He was then asked
whether be ever gave Mr. Sampson money for a
| publication in the money article of The Times, and
| he answered never. Not on your own behalf or
for anv company ~ queried the SolicitOr-General.
II must explain responded Baron Grant. Pressed.
| he said no. Then he was asked, Did you i'll 1871
nav Mr.. Sampson f2,5OOi" This inquiry the Baron's
| counsel tried to check. but in vain. Grant
then said he had not his books with him
and could not tell. Then the Lord Chief
Baron the presiding Judge broke in, Can
you not answer yes or noP 1t appeared
| he could not for he proceeded to make speech in
the course of which he declared again that he had
never paid money TO Mr.. Sampson to induce him
| to write something in his money article. nor was
| Mr. Sampson man to receive money for such pnr-
| nose At last the SOlcitOrGeneral produced
check dated April H. 1871, for f2CO payable to No.
| 1917 This Baron Grant reluctantly admitted to be
his own, and mo- 700" he admitted meant Mr.
| oh Ia for
amounts-one of ESQ one, June Q, of G4OO; June 49,
for f1OO: July Il, ESQ and f62ilO; Sept. 81 ElO25
and f9O0-an in 1871. When asked to state on
whose account or for what purpose these various
sums of money were paid by him to Mr.. Sampson,
| Grant once more protested, but again the Lord
! Chief Baron forced him to answer. he then said
in reduction of the losses sustained by MI Samp-
son in connection with company the name OF
| which will give you if you require" IL was re-
ouired. and proved to be the Labuan Coal Company,
| and the question followed How came you to pay
him this sum of E2OO" The answer was " Mr..
| samnson was a shareholder of the Labuan Coal
| Company and there was proposal MADE 10
me 70 bring out that Company in amalga-
nation with a Company called the emma
| steam Packet Company. The amalgamated Com
ropv WAS not successful, and Mr. Sampson, who had
shares in it, having made loss, l. IN consideration
for him. if not friendship agreed to rec0up him that
| lossD Then you gave him the t3O; that IL what IL
comes tot "Ihave said before that gave it," In
moment more it appeared that the Labuan Company
came out in 1854 or 1865. and that the amagamation
took place next year All the other sums, it was
| then declared by Grant, were paid for the same
reason We are expected to believe, therefore that
Raron Grant paid Mr. Sampson f2,5OO in 1871 to re-
coup him for speculative loss that occurred in 1865
| or 1896 and out of pare friendship and good WILL