The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-12-04
THE RUSSELL CASE.
Continued Interest in the Lon
don Scandal.
The Court DenSely Packed With
Society People.
Evidence Introduced for the DefsnSs-The
Earl on the StaHd-The Faint
Ing Episode.
Special to The MoRSISs CALL

LONDON, Dec. 3.-Thelinterest in the great
Russell separation case shows not the least
sign of abatement. When the court opened
this morning the room was densely packed
with an eager audience. Sir Charles Rus
sell continued his presentation OF the case
for the Earl, which was interrupted by ad-
journment yesterday. He declared the Pc
toner, Countess Russell had not only ex-
aggerated such of the facts as she had
brought forward. but had suppressed others
which size thought would be detrimental to
her claims. Sir Charles ridiculed the idea
that Russell kept pistol convenient for the
purpose of shooting his wife The quarrel
between the Earl and the Countess which
occurred at the Albemarle Hotel at the
time they came up to London to attend
leyee was due, not to the EarPs compelling
the Countess to act as valet to him, as the
Countess testified, but to the fact that the
Earl had refused to allow his wife 70 go to
the Ascot races in company with man
with whom he had every reason to forbid
his wife asSociating.
THE EARL'S WITNESS.
Immediately upon the conclusion of Sir
Charles Russell's address lie called as the
first witness for the defense Professor Rob-
erts. mathematical master at Bath, who
was in the habit of staying frequently at
the residence of Earl Russell. Professor
Roberts made very emphatic denial of the
actions imputed to him by the Countess in
relation to the Earl. The letters that
passed between the Earl and Professor
Roberts were then put in evidence 20 show
the relations that existed between them.
THE EARL's EVIDENCE.
Earl Russell followed the professor on the
stand. Witness testified that lie never
heard the slightest objection made to the
presence of Professor Roberts in his house.
He (witness) objected to lis wife going to a
certain lady's house, and based his objec-
ton on the fact that the lady was divorced.
Countess Russell was very much put out
by his Directing to her visiting tie lndy's
home, and in quarrel that followed witness
said to her, ''1f you say such things you
VIII soon be sorry you married me-" The
Countess replied, 80 l ain sorry" The
Earl declared that he never insisted that tie
Countess should dress him. If she had not
requested him to allow her to dress him he
would not have let her do so. He was
very much attached to her, and had tried TO
make things pleasant for her. lie objected
to her going to Ascot, for the reason there
ntlc ScNGIdI ptESOuS IflbTt WHOM lie ull NOT
wish her 10 meet With reference to the
charge that when the Countess on one occa-
sion asked him. after row, for e25. he
threw ter half sovereign, the Earl said it
was not true, He was about TO give her the
money she had asked for when she said. II
don't want your dirty money" The Earl
denied The Countess statement that upon
the occasion when he had written letter to
his solicitor mplaining about her eXtraya-
gauce he treated her in brutal manner.
THE PAINTING EPISODE.
Sir Charles then drew from the Earl his
version of the bedroom incident, when the
Countess was found nude and in faintng
condition upon the floor, as testified by her
maid. The Earl said that after he and his
wife retired LIE declared he would not go to
Lady Salisbury's, owing to the refusal Of
the Countess to go to Amberley Cottage, the
EarPs residence. The Countess got out of
bed and tainted on the floor. When she
came to she threw the soap dish at him aud
made Tor him with the poker, aud she
threatened to throw herself out of the win
dow II he remained In the room with her
The Earl declared the statements made by
the Countess when he left her and went to
Professor Roberts room, to be absolutely
false. There was not the slightest reason to
suggest any improperly between himself
and Professor Roberts. The Earl admitted
that he once used the word barren" in
conversation with his wife, but he only used
it in fun. He denied the cruelty TO cats at
trlputed to him. Further questioned the
Earl stated lie did not think his wife's
health or nerves suffered during her mar
ried life. Her ailments were caused by uu-
accustomed restraints.
UNACCUsToaIED RESTRAINTS.
At this point Sir Edward Clarke, repre-
senting The Countess, asked witness to give
an instance OF unaccustomed restraint. The
Earl replied that one instance was his limit
ing his wife TO six cigarettes n day. The
witness declared he was not unduly anxious
to have a son. He denied that he had ever
sworn at his wife or called her brute or a
beast. He was much annoy ed shortly after
her marriage by learning that many of the
Countess debts were unpaid. The Earl
stated that he never kept his wife up in the
night time making up his accounts. Once
the Countess told him she was - sorry"
she married him.
ANTE-NUPTIAL MISCONDUCT.
This closed the direct examination, and
Sir Charles Russell handed the witness over
to Sir Edward Clarke for cross-eXamination.
Among the first questions put to the Earl,
which caused the audience 10 prick up
their ears, was one which referred to the
Earl'S conduct before his marriage, and in
reply to it the Earl admitted that before he
married he had had intrigues with servants.
But. he said, he told Lady Mabel Scott. his
faneee, all the circumstances, and she
found that DO reason to discard him. At this
point the court adjourned.
The Earl left the court by side entrance,
thus escaping crowd of roughs gathered
outside to give him reception.