Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-06-26
DID GoRooN-oUMnIING CaEATe

Editor LABoUCHERE has assumed the
task of defending Sir WILLIAM GORDON
CUNNING against the charge of cheat
ing at baccarat despite the verdict OF
the court and the evidence against him.
He begins by promising that everyone
at Tranby Croft acted like fool-an
assumption with which it is not difficult
TO agree. Then he holds the methods
employed for detecting Sir WILLIAMS
alleged cheating UP to deriSion, refers
to the folly Of system of cheating car
ried on cOnspicuousy with red counters
on white paper, and says:
In NY youth 1 must have held hundreds
OF oaccarat banks ! speak, therefore, as
an expert when l say that it surpasses com
prehension how the banker should not have
noticed this change in the amount of stakes
on the part of the highest player against
him. The Prince of Wales explained it by
saying that he could not suppose that any
one was likely TO cheat But the banker
does not note the stakes before he makes
his own point 10 prevent cheating, but be-
cause he cannot play the game properly
without knowing what is staked on each of
The two tableauX On the first night
Sir William says that he played what is
called in gamblers slang mGsSe en- GUdEt.
This means that he staked one counter; If
he won the coup, the banker would pay him
counter, and then instead of withdrawing
the two, he added one more to them. thus
making his stake for the next coup three
counters. This game, although often play
ed by proficient, is somewhat confusing
10 novice, who. seeing three counters
whe re there was only one before, might be
led to fancy that there had been some Jug
CLING.
Mr.. LABoUCHERE lays great stress
upon the point that the witnesses
against Sir WILLIAM were inexperienced
players, and argues that if he had
really cheated some of the others would
naturally have been the first to discover
the fact. This, it may be said, is mere
SuppoSition and not evidence. Mr.. La
BOUcHERE's explanation of the signing
of the fatal document is suppositiouS;
but it is none the less ingenious. He
says:
Suddenly they Lord Coventry and Gen
eral Williams burst in upon him whilst he
was dressing for dinner. He denied the
charge Indignantly. They used the tut
most pressure TO force him to sign They
told him that there were five witnesses
against him, and that, in face of this, his
denial was worthless. They gave him to
understand that if only he would sign, the
whole business would remain a secret for
ever. If he did not, he was to be publicly
denounced as swindler the next day on
the DOncaster race course. What shall l
do!n he despairingly asked. "You are my
old friends; advise me-" Sign" was the
answer. The scene reminds me of what
must often have occurred in the dungeons
of the Inquisition. "Recant, Or
And often the victim did recant.
This was foolish, but it was not iEconsis-
tent with innocence. l have known many
charges of cheating, and charges proved on
far more substantial evidence than this
one. Yet never knew Of one in which .
the guilty person signed his own condem q.
nation.
Thus are the main points Of NJ
LABoUCHEEE'S argument, and tbO&g h
they will hardly re-iDSrs tie
Sir WILLIAM in the good graces Of he
royal baccarat bankers "set"