The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-06-06

w l4GG44A4NN "
ofsir William Gordon. Cumming, though
it was hoped that its use would prevent
a recurrence Of the events Of Ihe pre-
vious night. The witness's husband,
Mr. Arthur Wilson, senior, had OBJ
iected to baccarat playing, because in
his opinion the play might become high
"among hot-headed boys" Laughter:
On previous occasion, she continued,
the sum Of Ave hundred pounds had got
into the bank, which amount her hus-
band thought was too large.
"Why did not you tell the Prince OF
Wales that your husband objected to
baccasat?" asked Sir Edward Clarke.
Because" replied Mrs. Wilson, I'VE
were such staid non-gambling party
that we did not think there could be
much harm resulting from few quiet
games at bdccarat."
LORD COVENTRY.
Lord Coventry followed Mrs.
Arthur Wilson into the wit
ness box. The earl, vita the utmost
good humor, testified that during the
evening of September 10, at Tranby
Croft, Mr.. Lycett Green, MIR. Arthur
Wilson's son-in-law, called him to ono
side and made a communication to him,
which he (Mr. Green) afterwards ro-
peated in the presence OF General Owen
". " NyiiI,il;ss;as and Of himself and OF Lord
Edward Somerset, Captain SomeFs, anu
Mr.. Arthur Stanley Wilson. The sub
stance OF this communication was that
Sir William Gordon-C Cummings had be-
yond any possible doubt been seen by
several witnesses to cheat while playing
baccarat.
During another portion of his testi-
mony the Earl OF Coventry said that
when the plaintiff was shown the docu-
ment which he was asked to sign as
the price OF silence upon the part OF
the qranby Croft bacearat party, and
in which he, the plaintiff, agreed never
to play cards again, Sir William said:
"Why, this is tantamount 10 an admis-
sion Of guilt. won't sign 1t" "To
this we replied" said the Earl grayely
and sententiously, "'that is 80; but
there is no hurry about it.W
Replying to one Of Sir Charles Rus
sull's questions, the earl said that there
was nothing in Sir William Gordon
Cummings demeanor or behavior
throughout these proceedings which in
any way suggested that he had "lest
his head" On being advised by Gener-
al Williams, the plaintiff affixed his sig
nature to the document.
THE DEADLY DIARY.
Referring to what became Of the docu-
ment the Earl of Coventry said that he
personally forwarded it to the Prince OF
Wales, and that he, the witness, also
made q memorandum in his own private
note book OF the principal events which
took place at Tranby Croft in September
last.
This note book was then. produced by
the earl at the request of Sir,
Charles Russell, and the latter turned
over the pages until he came to the
dates Of tho occurrences at Tranby
Croft and commenced reading the en-
tries. The entries referred to gave
circumstantial fact Of the events Of the
much talked of evening at Mr.. Arthur
Wilson'S residence, and it was soon
seen that they agreed in al mini par.
tfcuiars with the evidence already pre-
sented upon behalf OF the defendants.
The Earl was cross-examined at
length, byt nothing further OF IN inn
portant nature was developed from the
testimony.
THE ARGUMENT BEGUN.
!. This concluded the case for the de-
fence, and Sir Charles Russell, on be-
half OF the defence, began his address
to the jury. Sir Charles commenced
by calling the attention Of the jury par
tIcularly to what he classed as the
altered tone OF plaintiffs counsel since
this damning evidence had been given
in favor of the defendant"
%The plaintiffs hopes have been that
after hearing his, the plaintiffs, evil
dence, the defendants would admit TINT
they were mistaken, but that was i'm
possible"
Continuing, Sir Charles asked how
the plaintiff 8 conduct could possibly be
considered consistent with innocence.
The defendants, he said, had been
blamed for not at once publicly expos
ing Sir William Gordon-C Cummings il
he was really detected in cheating. But
the Jury would admit that it was too
much to suggest that men honorably
believing themselves to be acting as the
plaintiffs friends should be treated
as coming into court and not be-
lieying him guilty because they
J;j roE iss,a nUninGt him mn
unmerciful edict OF irreyocable
condemnation. Could anything be i'm
puted to the witnesses to justify the as
sumption that they were not credited.
He had not known in his experience
five witnesses who gave such concurrent
evidence which was SO absolutely un-
touched by cross-examination.
The Lord Chief Justic1 here adj
iourned the court until Monday next ut
l0:30 a. m.
Has Faith In His Brother.
BALTIMORE, June 5.-Alestar Penrose