Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-04-19
BY the Attorney General, but No Proofs
Of HurIburtIs Astounding Story
Are Brought Forward.
NO KERCY is SHOWN TIE DEFENDANT.
BE Is Badly Scored BY Plaintiffs Counsel ard the
Judge Over Els Mysterious Double
Wlfrsi Murray.
PROBABLE pIsAGREEKINT OF TEE JURY
rBY puNLAP's CABLE ooMrLEr.l

LONDON, April 1S.-To-daY was the De
ginning of the end in the now notorious, il
not celebrated, case of Miss Gladys Evelyn
against William Henry Hurlburt. Pub
lie interest, however, showed 4 distinct
falling of, because the evidence on both
sides had been completed yesterday and the
Attorney General had made his address on
behalf OF the defendant Mr.. Candy, too,
had partially finished his address to the
Jury, so that only the end OF it had to be
heard, and the judge had to sum up before
the case went to the jury.
This summing up, however attractive il
may be to lawyers and those intimately con-
nected with the case, is not particularly e1.
hilarating, and therefore does not draw
many people who get their amusement from
the cross-examination of the-witnesses, their
badgering by replies to the counsel and gen.
orally from the discomfort to which q mortal
Is always subject when he appears before a
Judge and jury. 1t is a sort of bear-bait-
ing, in fact; hence its popularity.
A Big Conspiracy Charged.
The mysterious Wilfred Murray, who.
the defendant SAYS, used his name and
fame, is still absent and his whereabouts is
unknown. The Attorney General, in sum-
ming up for the defendant, pleaded il was
the clesrest case of conspiracy. In
proof Of the statement that the
case IN its advanced state is not
attractive, 1t may be stated that the plaintiff
vaG the only one of her sex in the court.
Mr. Hurlburt was, of course, on evidence,
and be was accompanied by Mr.. Beckett,
rShe member OF Parliament, who was 80 i'll
two days ago that his evidence had to be
taken by commission, as he could not appear
in person.
Mr.. Candy, IN continuing his address, as
serted that the defendant deliberately in
vented the story about his having been in
troduced to the plaintiff by his secretary,
'the mysterious Murray" who had acted
the part of ferret. The plaintiff had never
seen this man and in fact the only evidence
of the existence of such person as Murray
was to be found in the statement of the de-
fendsnt and a single document
The Mysterious Murray.
Surely, argued, the counsel, the defendant
would have called someone who could have
proved Murray's existence if he had been
let do SO.
Justice Cave, when Mr.. Candy sat down,
then began his summing ND, which was of a
very elaborate and painstaking description.
For half an hour he talked dead against
the defendant and said if Mr.. Hurlburt
wrote the letters, of which mention had
been made in the case, his character was
blasted forever. On the other hand, if this
was a foul conspiracy against him, the
plaintiff and those associated with her GER
tainly deserved to be sentenced to penal
servitude.
The first question to which be wished to
direct the attention of the jury was that re-
lating to the antecedents of the parties to
the case. Those of the woman-the plaintiff
would certainly bear investigation. As
for Jackson, with whom at one time she
lived, he was a gambler at Monte Carlo;
and was without any reputable calling.
AQuestion of Belief.
The defendant was an American, and the
Court knew very little of his past life and
habits down to the time when he left Amer
lea and came to reside in England. 1t was
undoubtedly fact thathe had been received
in tine best society, that he had written
books and that he was a man of great cul-
ture and literary acquisitions.
&bap Tod IN tho ruora nuaufiop of
the cath of one side or the other, most peo-
pie would be inclined to give their verdict
in favor of the defendant. The defense,
however, said His Lordship was really a
very extraordinary case, and invited the
careful scrutiny of the jury.
In the first place there were those letters
which we're claimed to have been written
by Murray, but which no friend or expert
in handwriting had been put into the wit
ness box to swear were not written by Mr.
Hurlburt. The defendants claim that the
writing OF Mr.. Hurlburt and of this man
Murray could not be distinguished, and
the statement that two men wrote exactly
the same hand was so strange as to be we'll
nigh incredible.
A Strange Coincidence.
1t also seemed perfectly incredible how
one man could forge another mans writing
in so large a number as $50 letters without
ever betraying himself in any way. There
was another point to which he wished TO
direct the attention of the jury, and this
was that these letters were curious in another
fact, viz, that the handwriting was identi-
al. that both the defendant aud Mur,orSs
letters contained French quotations.
1t was also difficult to see what object
Murray had in initiating the handwriting OF
Mr.. Hurlburt Coming now to the identity
of this individual. he said that if there was
such a person as Murray, the material for
proving, that he exists must be very con-