St. Paul daily globe., 1891-06-10
CUMMING IS CRUSHED
Continued From First Page

y
ton. Yesterday Sir Edward Clarke
thought proper
Here the solicitor general, Sir Edward
Clarke, sprang to his feet, and, inter-
ruptlng Gen. Williams. exclaimed:
Il ask your iordshlp to interfere and
that Gen, Williams should not be al
lowed to make statement, as he has
not the privilege of doing So"
To this Gen. Williams hotIy replied in
a ringing voice. all trace OF huskineSS
having disappeared under the influence
OF the angry feelings which animated
him:
Il was accused of an abominable
charge"
Here the lord chief justice interfered,
saying: Il do not remember the ex-
preston. but | do not think that you
can be allowed to speak"
But Gen. Williams persisted in being
heard, remarking angrily: I'VE were
accused of sacrificing an innocent man.
This statement was made without any
evidence being brought forward for its
Justification" C.
Lord COleridge again interrupted the
general, remarking with considerable
warmth: 81 cannot hear any state
ment from you," and Immediately COM
nenced his summing up. while Gen.
Williams retired, frowning and greatly
discOntented, to his seat, where he re-
celyed the coincidence of the friends
who had come with him to court in Or
der to hear him defend himself from
the allegations made yesterday by the
solicitor general in the latter'S sum-
ming up for the plaintiff.
The lord chief justice. at the opening
of his speech, explained to the jury at
length the difference of an action for
SANDER, as this one Is, and an action
tor libel. His lordship added that if
the jury found that the defend
ants had spoken the the truth,
their verdict should be for the de-
PENDANTS. But if the jury thought
broadly that the charges they made were
not true and that Sir William Gordon
Cumming did not do anything
wrong while playing baccarat at
Iranbyc1oft in September last, then
their verdict must be for the
plaintiff. Lord Coleridge then en-
treated the jury to keep their minds
steadily on the evidence and on the evi-
dence only. During another portion
OF his summing up Lord Coleridge said
that the Prince of Wales presence at
Tranbycroft was sufficient to explain
Lycett Green's objection to creating a
disturbance in the baecarat room, or
elsewhere, by calling attention to the
actions which he objected to on the part
of Sir William Gordon Cumming.
''Sir Edward Clarke" said Lord Cole
ridge, 'has said that the eye saw what
the eye expected to see, and undoubt
edly 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 observation
referred to would apply" Lord Cole
ridge also called the attention of the
jury to one particular observation which
was made on behalf Of the plaintiff dur
ing the course of the trial. 1t was to
the effect that there was more in the
case than appeared on the surface"
Against this the lord chief justice
remarked, II most emphatIcally
protest. The jury has nothing to do
with things which are not Oh the sur
face. You have to confine yourself to
the single issue, and what you have
heard and what has been proved during
the trial" When Lord Coleridge had
proceeded thus far with his charge to
the jury the hour of noon had arrived,
and the court, as usual, promptly adj
Journed for lunch. During the discus
sion which followed the remarks of the
lord chief justice the general opinion
arrived at was that the charge was
against Sir William Gordon Cumming,
although nothing decisive had been said
either way. Lord Coleridge spoke in
quiet, fatherly. conversational manner
to the jury, and often in an undertone,
when it was only possible for the jury
men and those in the immediate Yicin-
ity of the lord chief justice to hear
what he had said.