Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-10
The Ladies With Sir William,
the Jury the Other Way.
GENERAL WILLIAMS WRATH.
My Lord Chief Justice Compelled 10 Squech
the ChOIericaIIy Pale Soldier.
The Curtain Drops on the Comedy-Draua
OF the Prince and the Baccar4t Chips,
or the Royal Gamester-The
,sIry's Verdict.
Against Sir Gordon.

the court. The Prince OF Wales, 10 the dis
appointment Of many WIS absent. He WAS
al the Ascot races.
The proceedings opened with most sell
satiunal incident. The lord chief justice
had. hardly taken his seat when Gen. OweG
Williams stepped 10 the front Of the bench
and SAID, his face pale with emotion and
his voice husky with feeling.
My lord, have taken your protection.
Yesterday Sir Edward Clarke thought
proper --
Here Solicita--Geu Sir Edward
Clarke Sprang to his feet and iuterruptmg
Gen. Williams. exclaimed. IL ASK YOUR
lordshlp TO interiors andtna Gen, Williams
not be allowed IN. make statement, Is he
has not the privilege of doing So.
To this Cen Williams hotiy replied
IN \ RINGING VOICE.
all trace of huSkincsS having disappeared
under the influence of the angry feeling
when animated linn, Il was accused OF an
abOmiuable charge - -
Here the lord chief justice interfered,
saving Il don't remember tue expression,
but | do not think that YOU can be allowed
TO speak"
But Gen. Williams persisted in getting
heard. remarking angrily We ART accused
of sacrificing an innocent man. This state
ment was made without any evidence being
brought forward for its Justification
Lord Coleridge again interrupted the
general rem2rking with considerable
warmth. Il cannot hear any statement
from YOU" and Immediately commenced
his summing up, while Gen. William, re
tired frowning and greatly disconnected 10
his seat, where he received the condolences
of friends who had come with him 10
court in order to hear him defend himself
from the allegation made yesterday by the
solicitor general in the latter's summing
up for the plaintiff.
The lord chief justice. at the opening Of
his speech, explained to the jury 1t length
the difference of an action for Islander, rs
this one is action for libel. His lOrdshIp
ADDED that if the jury found that defend
ants had spoken the truth. then the verdict
should be for the defendants; but if the
Jury thought probable that the charges they
made were not true, and that Sir William
Gordon Cumming did not do anything
wrong in playingb accarat at TanbyCrOft,
then the verdict must be for the plaintiff.
Lord Coleridge then entreated the jury 10
keep their minds steady on the evidence
and the evidence only. Continuing. the
lord chief justice analyzed At length the
evidence given by the plaintiff, which evil
dence he said. was well worthy of cOnsld-
Grafton Plaintiff may, he added, have had
his counters on pile OF white paper. aud
would have been less likely TO be detected
if ne had, as the others did, put their cOun-
tiers on the cloth OF the table. During an
other portion of his summing up, he SAID
that the Prince OF Wales presence at
Tanby-CrOft was sufficient to explain L.ycett
Green's objection TO creating disturbance
in the baccarat room or elsewhere by call
ing attention TO actions which he objected
to on the part of Sir William Gordon Cum
ming.
Sir Edward Clarke. said Lord Coleridge,
had said that the eye saw what the eve eX-
pected, 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 Observa-
ton referred 70 would apply. Sir Edward
Clark the lord chief justice continued, had
commented upon Berkley Levett's eXami-
nation. 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 stealing aud
lying!' Laughter.
There would have been nothing unlikely
in such an exclamation. Lord Coleridge
called the attention of the jury 10 one par
ticular observation which was made on De
half of the plaintiff during the course of
the trial 1t was to tine effect that there
was more in the case than appeared on the
surface Against this the lord CHEZ
remarked 81 most emphatically protest
The Jury has nothing 10 do with things
w
confine yourselves to the SiTgle issue and
what YOU have heard, and what has been
proved during the trial
When Lord Coleridge rad proceeded thus
far with his charge to the jury, the hour of
noon had arrived and the court, as usual,
adjourned for luncheon.
During the discussion which followed the
remarks of the lord chief justice the gen
eral opinion arrived at was that the charge
was against Sin William Gordon Cumming
although nothing decisive had been sait,
either way. When the chief justice defined
the law Of libel as different from the law Of
SANDER. and when he gave special instruc-
tons in regard to the amount of damages
which the Jury should. if they so desired,
assess in the event they found for the plain
tiff. IL was considered that Lord Colericge's
instructions decidedly favored Sir William
Gordon Cumming. But when ne Analysed
the evidence of the defendants and That OF
Gen. Williams, the Prince of Wales and
Lord Coventry, it was judged That this was
in effect an Endorsement OF their evidence
In this connection Lord COleridge said
that Sir William GordOn-Cumming did not
come there to make fortune and that his
character would be sufficiently cleared by
the jury awarding him, should the evidence
warrant il. small ar,ount OF damage.
I ord CoIeridee also described at length the
high position and brave career of Sir VIII
iam saying the latter went to 1anby-CrofJ
as a guest, and IF / might he permltteg to
say. as a sort of guest of whom any host
ess might be proud.
After luncheon the lord chief justice re-
sumed his summing up While admitting
the impossibility of man of Sin Williams
position and wealth lowering himself TO
cheat his friends the prince of Wales too,
Lord Coleridge made :. strong point against
the plaintiff in calling the jury's attention
TO his failure to face his dccusers. Lord
Coleridge then said: We have now come
TO very important point in my mind. l
have carefully searched for, but have been
unable 10 find, any contradiction of the
statement that Sir William Gordon Cum
ming was informed of Mr.. Lycett Green's
desire to be confronted with him. If | am
added the lord chief justice, turn
ing to Sir Edward Clark, 4 desire to be
corrected"
Sir Edward Clarke, for the plaintiff, at
once rose to his feet and said that there was
40 evidence that Sir William Gordon Cum
ming had been informed of Mr.. Green's
iesire to be confronted with him, the
plaintiff
Thereupon Sir Charles Russell, for the
defendants. promptly arose and read iron.
Gen. Williams testimony that the latter
had said in court that ne had informed Sir
William Gordon Cumming of Lycett Green's
iesire to be confronted with him.
sford Coleridge. when both Sir Charles
md Sir Edward had said all they wished
10 say on the above point, dwelt upon it,