Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-04-20
HE LOVED GLADYS.
TER STORY OF WILLIAM HENRY HURLBURT'S
WEAKNESSES.
How the E1-Imrican Editor was Scored BY
Counsel for q Woman Who Was Without
Shams-Ths Astounding Claim Of Hurl-
burt That il Was Case Of
Mistaken Identity.

|
Mistaken Identity.
LoNDoN, April l9.-The celebrate
breach OF promise case between Mis-
Gladys Evelyn and William Henr
Hurlburt, formerly editor OF the Ne'
York World, but for many years RESI-
dent Of London. is now drawing 10
close. The only important feature il
the case is the mystery of Wilfred Mur
ray, who Hurlburt claims personated hin
on the important occasions referred to b.
plaintiff. In summing up the case yes
terday before the jury, Mr.. Candy
counsel for the plaintiff, claimed tina
there ought to be somebody to prov
Murray's existence, as he had not ye
shown up.
Justice Cave, when Mr.. Candy sa
down, then began his summing up
which was of very elaborate and pains
taking description. For half an hou
he talked dead against the defendant
and said II Mr.. Hurlburt wrote the let
ters, OF which mention had been mad,
in the case, his character was blasted
forever. On the other hand, ii this wa
foul conspiracy against him, tn,
plaintiff and those associated with hel
certainly deserved to be sentenced t,
penal scrvitude.
The first question to which he wished
to direct the attention OF the jury wa
that relating to the antecedents OF tn,
parties to the case. Those Of tn,
woman-the plaintiff-would certainl!
bear investigation. As for Jackson,
with whom at one time she lived, h,
was gambler at Monte Carlo, and was
without any reputable calling.
The defendant was an American, and
the Court knew very little OF his pas
life and habits down to the time wher
he left America and came TO reside il
England. 1t was undoubtedly IA fact
that he had been received in the besI
society, that he had written books and
that he was man Of great culture and
literary acquisitions.
II then, it rested on the mere ques
tion of the oath of one side or the other
most people would be inclined to give
their verdict in favor OF the defendant
The defense, however, said his lordship
was really a very extraordinary case
and invited the careful scrutiny Of the
jury.
In the first place there were those
letters which were claimed to have
been written by Murray, but which nc
friend or expert in handwriting had
L T., 81 hnN n D
were not written by Mr.. Hurlburt.
The defendants claim that the writing
OF Mr.. Hurlburt and o. this man Muir
ray could not be distinguished, and the
statement that two men wrote exactly
the same hand was so strange as TO be
wel-nigh incredible.
1t also seemed perfectly incredible
how one man could forge another mans
writing in so large a number as $50
letters without ever bctraying himself
in any way There was another point
to which he wished to direct the atten'
tion of the jury, and this was that these
letters were curious in another fact,
viz. that the handwriting was identical;
that both the defendant and Murray
Il
1t was also difficult to see what OBJ
iect Murray had in initiating the
handwriting of Mr.. Hurlburt. Coming
now to the identity Of this individual.
he said that If there was such a
person as Murray, the material for prov
ing that he exists must be very con-
siderable, because IL was stated that he
had travelled very extensively, not only
on the American continent, but also In
England and Ireland; yet, not 4 single
witness had been called who was able 70
testify he had ever seen or heard OF
such a person, still less Of any one by
the name OF Murray who spoke French
and was able to write, as it was alleged
this man did.
Touching the romantic incidents oil
the meeting in the omnibus IT was to be
remarked that the plaintiff said that II
was Good Friday on which she first met
the defendant, whereas the defendant
on his part, declared that he was really
with his wife at the house of Mr.. Sey-
mour. in Wiltshire, on that day.
A most important witness on this point
would undoubtedly have been the de-
PENDANTS wife, yet she had not been
called TO corroborate this statement. In
fact. His Lordship received with the
utmost astonishment the statement that
the wife was in Rome, because the ease
had been pending for considerable
time, and therefore there was plenty OF
opportunity for her to have been
brought to England in order to give hei
testimony. Then why was Mr.. Sey'
moure, at whose house in Wiltshire the
defendant stated he was staying on this
Good Friday, also not summoned, or
even servant in the household, or any
body else to corroborate the statement
At this point the court adjourned un
I'll Monday, when 1t Is expected yer
dict will be reached.
1t is not going too far to say thai
London is completely mystified by tn,
case, while the public at large is divided
into two camps, one for and one agains
Mr.. Hurlburt. For Miss Gladys Evelyr
there is, however, no sympathy at all
and as far as the case is concerned th'
only question that arises in mems mind
is that Mr.. Hurlburt'S astounding stor!
Is backed by so little independent eVi
dence. A prosecution for perjury Is al
most sure to follow whichever way th'
case goes. The general belief about th'
court is that the jury will disagree.
A sensation was created when Lor'
Rothschild was called for the purpose o
proving that Mr.. Hurlburt spent Jnol
lee Day. June 2l, 1887, at his house, th
very day Miss Evelyn said the defend
ant spent the day with her.