New-York tribune., 1891-05-01

.,on: or not. as they may prefer There is pub
la nrosecutor-one for all England-and he is, in
his official capacity, the scott and byword of the
oommauity. / mean no reflection on Sir Augustus
S,spbenson. who does bis dnty we'll as any
hodv II is the system which l condemn. Mr.
uurlbert moreover, is reported 10 be on the eve
of a tourney TO America in pursuit of Mr.. Wilfrid
Murray He is a shrewd judge of what may be
hest In difficult circumstances. If there were any
orestiop of social ostracism Of prosecuting him
for perjury, such journey might postpone both.
7 neroeive that have written thus fer as if
sh. facts of Miss Evelyn Els's action against
Mr.. William Henry Hurlbert for breach OF promise
Of marriage were known TO YOU. Indeed, they
must be known, and only the briefest notice
of the essential points of the case can be needed
for my purpose. Miss Ellis says she met Mr..
Hurlbert in an omnibus, that an intimacy sprang
I'D between them, that they lived together III
numerous places which she named, that she
became his mistress, and that he prom
ised her marriage, she not knowing that he
was married already. She alleged written
promise, but in proof of her other statements sub
mitted certain entries in a diary She produced,
also. about $50 letters written, as she said, by
MIR. Hurlbert. They were admittedly. If not in
his handwriting, in handwriting SO marvellously
like his that the two could not be distinguished.
Net only the manuscript but the expressions were
his the scraps of French which he commonly
used. and they were obviously the composition OF
some one who had fluent pen, as Mr.. Hurlbert
certainly has
They were. in one sense, well written. Unhap-
pily they were extremely indecent The judge
said they were so shocking that if the defendant
wrote them his character was gone MIR. Hurl-
bert denied the promise, and on going into the
witness-box took lire of his own, denied that
he wrote the letters. denied the whole story of
the plaintiff, and denied that she was his mistress
or that he ever had anything to do with her ex-
cept 10 introduce her to Mr.. Wilson Barrett. The
court sat in amazement as he swore. Miss Ellis
had known him under the alias of Wilfrid Murray
and Mr.. Hurlbert now alleged that there was
Wifrid Murray other than himself that Murray
had been his secretary for years. that it was Muir
ray who had the intrigue with Miss Ellis. that
it was Murray who wrote all the letters. 1t was
necessary to allege in support of this extraordinary
theory that Murray's handwriting was exactly
like Mr.. Hurlbert's, and Mr. Hurlbert did not
shrink from alleging that. The jury were asked
10 believe that the whole $50 letters were by
Murray.
The question who wrote these letters be-
came. therefore. more important to Mr.. Hurl-
bert than the question whether he promised
marriage TO Miss Ellis. But the English law is
peculiar. Mr.. Justice Cave, jutye Of high
character and abilities, pronounced Mr. Hurl-
bert's story almost incredible He pointed out
that it had no confederation on the essential
points, that no witness was produced TO testify
TO the existence of Wilfrid Murray, though, by
Mr. Hurlbert's account, he had been in his
service for years and must have been seen by
great numbers of persons; that the letters were
written from places where Mr.. ITurlbert admitted
he had been at the dates given, though he said
Murray had been with him; that Mr.. Hurlberts
attempts to prove alibis at the dates when plain
till said he was with her had broken down; that
the defendant had failed TO call Mrs. Hurlbert
whose testimony in respect to some matters would
have gone far TO clear him: that he had failed
70 call other witnesses within reach to speak
TO his presence in the houses and at tie times
he declared himself to be; and that there were
mary other improbabities in his story
The Jury however, escaped from the disagree
able necessity of saying whether they agreed with
Mr.. Justice Cave on this point. They came into
court with the finding that there was no promise
of marriage. 1t does not satisfy the public
The press points out that there was o2e side
or the other very gross and deliberate perjury
You will draw your own conclusions from what
j have quoted as to the side on which they think
the chief weight Of false swearing rested. There
NAV of course be real Wilfrid Murray, but
If so, he is, by Mr.. Hurbert's account entirely
unlike him in appearance. The plaintiff could not
possibly have mistaken one for the other,
and there is as yet nothing but Mr.. Hurlberts as
sertion to connect Murray with the letters.
On one side or the other, therefore, there Is
deibrate perjury. The author Of the letters
whoever he may be, is one of the vilest ana most
impudent scoundrels on whom the sun ever shone.
1t is but too evident that Mr.. Hurlberts steady
swearing has not convinced the English public
that they did not proceed from his pen. If he
is innocent, he has the most direct and powerful
motive q man could have to prosecute the plaintiff
for perjury. Most of the papers say hard things
OF Mr.. Hurlbert but hardest OF all is the silence
of "The Times" There, if enywhere he had
friend, but the conductors of that journal have
sense Of responsibility, knowledge of public
opinion and a shrewd Judgment of their own, and
tncy do not care TO espoUse Mr.. llurberts canse
or to express a belief in the existence of Wilfrd
Murray, or in his authorship Of the letters.
G.. W S.
RENEF{TS IN UARM WEATHER.