The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-06-17
Press and Pulpit Denounce the Prince
OF Wales.
A Social and Political Storm Fairly
Started.

LONDON, June 9.--On this, the seventh,
and, it was hoped, the last day of the ia
nous baccarat suit, the same very familiar
scenes were witnessed outside and inside
the court. Possibly there may have been
a change in the composition of the crowds
drawn TO the law courts in the hope of be-
ing present at the end of this sensational
suit, but to all general and outward APP
pearances the same people who were
around and about the courtroom Mon
day, June !, are there again this morning.
The prince of Wales, to the disappoint-
ment of many, was absent. He was at the
Ascot races.
The Charge
The lord chief justice at the opening of
his speech explained to the jury at length
the difference of an action for SANDER, as
this one is. and an action for libel. His
lordship added that if the jury found that
the defendants had spoken the truth their
verdict should be for the defendants, but if
the jury thought, broadly, that the
charges they made were not true and that
Sir William Gordon Cumming did not do
anything wrong in playing baccarat at
Tranby Croft September last, then the
verdict must be for the plaintiff. He en-
treated the Jury to keep their minds stead
lily on the evidence and on the evidence
only. Continuing the lord chief justice
analysed at length the evidence given by
the plaintiff, which evidence, he said, was
well worthy of consideration. The plaintiff
he added, had his counters on a pile OF
white paper and would have been less
likely to be detected il he had, as the 9th
ers did, put his counters on the cloth of
the table. During another portion of his
summing up Lord Coleridge said that the
prince OF Wales presence at Tranby Croft
WIS sufficient TO explain Mr.. Lycett
Green's objection to creating disturbance
In the baccarat room, or elsewhere, by
calling attention to the actions which he
objected to on the part OF Sir William Cor
don Cumming.
"Sir Edward Clarke" said Lord Cole
ridge, "had said that the eye saw what the
eye expected see, and, undoubtedly, if
persons had their minds set on certain
things less proof was sufficient to satisfy
them than would be otherwise needed.
But the question was as to whether in this
case the observation referred to would ap-
ply. Sir Edward Clarke" the lord chief
Justice continued, chad commented upon
Mr. Berkely Levett's exclamation, Good
God, Sir William Gordon Cumming caught
cheating! But suppose that the remark
had been, Good heavens, the archbishop
OF Nova Scotia, prelate OF the order of
the sun. caught selling living! Laugh.
ter There would have been nothing un-
likely in such an exclamation"
Lord Coleridge also called the attention
OF the Jury to one particular observation
which was made on behalf of the plain
tiff during the course of the trial 1t was
to the.effect that there was more in the
case than appeared ON the surface"
Against this" the lord chief justice re-
marked, Il most emphatically protest.
The jury has nothing to do with things
which are not on the surface. You have
to contne yourself TO the single issue and
what you have heard and what you have
seen during the trial"
When Lord Coleridge had proceeded
thus far with his charge to the Jury the
hour of noon had arrived, and the court,
as usual, promptly adjourned for lunch.
After luncheon the lord chief Justice re-
eumed his summing up.
The summing up of the lord chief JUS
tlce during the afternoon was undoubted-
ly more strongly against Sir William Cor
don Cumming than were the chief JUS
tees remarks made during the morning.
The afternoon utterances OF Lord Cole
ridge may be said to have amounted prac-
Hcally to instructions to find verdict
against the plaintiff. Continuing his ref
erences to the prince OF Wales, Lord Cole
ridge said that the prince was, he "pre-
sumed, gentleman and the instinct of an
honorable man was to range himself on
the side of his friends. If the prince did
not believe the story he would have made
IL point to show the world he did not
believe it, but he (the prince) had not met
the plaintiff since" A military tribunal,
the chief justice added in substance, would
judge if the proceedings with which
Gen. Williams and Lord Coventry we're
concerned formed an infraction of the
rules and regulations governing the army,
so with that point the jury need not
trouble themselves. He lord Coleridge)
I'D not know if the gentlemen just men,
toned had or had rot broken any mill
tary rule, but if they had done so, in the
elisf Justices opinion, they had done 80
with the best of motives. Lord Coleridge
also said that he did not know why the
Jury had been informed that il was inn
possible for the names of the prince of
Wales and Gen. Owen Williams to remain
on the army list il the name of Sir Will
lam Gordon Cumming was eliminated
there from. This had nothing TO do with
the case. Inc jury verdict would not
have the slightest effect upon the military
authorities IN either way so far as the
gentlemen mentioned were concerned.
Proceeding to the consideration of the
precis drawn at Tranby Croft and setting
forth the outline of the events which took
place in regard to the baccarat scandal,
the lord chief justice said that the precis
was not in evidence in the case, and that
it was merely a statement of the affair
written by one of the witnesses in the
suit. Lord Coleridge then turned his at
tention to Sir William Gordon Cumming.
though his eyes were kept continually
upon the jurymen and not upon the
plaintiff During this branch OF the dis
course Lord Coleridge severely criticised
the baronet's conduct after leaving Tranby
Croft, referring to the events subsequent
to Sept. 10. the day when the Tranby
Croft party may be said 70 have broken
- A.