St. Paul daily globe., 1891-06-10
AFTER A GOOD DINNER,
The Lord High Executioner Set
ties the Case.

ties the Case.
LONDON, June 9.-The summing up
of the lord chief justice during the aft
ernOon was undoubtedly more strongly
against Sir William Gordon Cumming
than were the chief Justices remarks
made during the morning. The after
noon utterances of Lord Coleridge may
be said to have amounted practically to
instructions to find verdict against the
plaintiff. While admitting the improba-
Cummings position and wealth lower
ing himself to cheat, and to
cheat his friend, the Prince of
Wales, too, Lord Coleridge made a
strong point against the plaintiff III call
Ing the jury's attention to his failure to
face his accusers. Continuing his ref
erence 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 his be-
lief on the side of his friends. If the
prince did not believe the story he would
have made it point to show the world
that he did not believe 1t. But he (tbe
prince) has 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 were concerned
formed an infraction of thS rules and reg
ulationS governing the army,s with that
point the jury need not trouble them
selves. He, Lord Coleridge, did not
know if the gentlemen Just mentioned
had or had not broken any military
rule, but if they had done so, i'm the
chief Justices opinion, they had done
so with the best Of motives. Lord
Colerldge also said that he did not know
why the jury had been informed that
it was impossible for the names of the
Prince of Wales and Gen. Owen Will
Jams to remain on the army list if the
name of Sir William Gordon Cumming
was eliminated therefrom. This had
nothing to do with the case. The jury's
verdict would not have the slightest
effect upon the military authorities in
one way or the other so far as the gen.
tlemen mentioned were concerned. Pro-
ceeding to the consideration of the precis
drawn up at Tranbycroft 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 state
ment of the affair written by one of the
witnesses IN the suit. Lord Coleridge
then turned his attention to Sir William
Gordon Cumming, though his eyes were
kept continually upon the jurymen and
not upon the plaintiff. During this
branch of the discourse Lord Coleridge
severely criticised the baronet's con-
duct after leaving Tranbycroft, refer
ring to the events subsequent to Sept.
10. the day when the Tranby croft party
may be said to have broken up. His
conduct then. according to the chief
justice, was not of a nature tend
ing to indicate that the plaintiff
was innocent of the charges brought
against him. At another and later por-
tion of his charge Lord Coleridge, re-
ferring to the criticism which has been
heaped upon the Prince of Wales since
the affair first became public for the
share he. the heir apparent. had taken
in the Tranby episode, said, in the
main, that England was not only free
country, but censorious one. The life
of the Prince of Wales, like that of
every other person of rank, was con-
tinually made subject of public COM
ment. ''Ths Prince of Wales" Lord
Coleridge added, somewhat pathetic
ally, it appeared, ''goes through many
boring ceremonies, and what if he did
Introduce baccarat into that great
house?"
In the absence of any portion of the
scandal being directly connected with
the Prince of Wales. Lord Coleridge
could not imagine how any harm could
be done to the monarchy, to the Prince
of Wales or anybody else. adding sig
nificantly, though some people might
have asked when they heard of the
trouble at Tranbycroft. why did he not
read his BibIe?'" But said the lord
chief justice, nobody was any the