St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-06-03
A JUROR WITH NERVE,
Two Questions Bring to Light tn,
Princes Belief.

Princes Belief
LONDON, June "A wild sensation
was caused in the crowded court room
when Sir Edward Clarke was inter-
rupted by one of the jurors, who de-
sired to question the Prince of Wales on
some points of testimony. This auda-
clous subject of the princes royal
mother said in loud voice:
Are the jury TO understand that YOU
were banking on these two occasions
and saw nothing of the alleged NAL
practlceS?" The prince hesitated for
moment as if undecided as to whether
he ought or ought not to reply. Final
~, concluding that he would answer,
he said with half smile: 1T is very
easy for a banker, when dealing cards,
not to see anything, especially when in
the company of friends in country
house. You do not for moment sup
pose that any one will play unfairly"
Inc juror, returning to the charge,
asked: What was your opinion at the
llme OF the charges made against the
PLAINTIFF" To this the prince suavely
replied: "The charges made against
him were so unanimous that | had not
any other course open to me than to be-
lieve them"
lhe princes last answer caused an
other of those futters of excitement.
caused by whispered comment, which
follow the making on one side or the
other of point during the progress Of
an important trial. The juror, appar-
emily, had succeeded in bring out,
squarely and beyond any possible
doubt, the fact that tine Prince of Wales.
In view of the evidence which had been
placed before him at Tranbycroft by
the ladies and gentlemen who had
played baccarat that Sir William Gordon
Cumming Sept. and 8, 1890, had be-
come convinced of the plaintiffs guilt.
when the murmurS of astoniShment
greeted the jurors questions and the
princes answers had subsidized, Sir Ed
ward Clarke, seeing that he must do
everything possible to regain the
ground which seemed to have been lost
by the plaintiff in the estimation of the
Jurymen, said, addressing the Prince of
w ales:
IL take it that your highness' answer
to the nrSt question put to you by the
juror was. substantially, that you had
not seen any malpractiGes during the
games of baccarat played at Tranby-
croft last September?' The prince as
sented to this, and his examination was
concluded. He gave his evidence in
halting, hesitating manner, and he
seemed to be very glad and exceedingly
relieved when his examination was
over. Though it only lasted twen-
ty minutes, the examination of the
prince evidently wearied him eX-
ceedingly, and made him extremely
nervous. The prince seemed to lose his
usual state of calm and dignity shortly
after he entered the witness box. He
did not seem able to make himself at
ease on the stand. 1t was noticed that
the heir apparent was decidedly fidgetv,
that lie kept changing his position and
that he did not seem able to keep his
hands still. The prince repeatedly
smoOthed his beard with his right hand,
and never once lifted his eyes to the
people in the court room. When a ques-
ton more pressing, more to the point
than usual was put to him, the princes
face was sbserved to flush considerably
and then to turn pale again, showing
the state of nervousness in which the
prince found himself Except to the
lord chief justice, counsel, jurors, press
representatives. and others in proximity
to the witness box only about a couple
of the princes answers were fairly
audible throughout the court.
The word you" in Sir Charles cross
examination of the prince generally
took the use of ''your royal highness,"
larded Sir Edward Clarke'S questions.
But though Mr.. Gladstone's attorney
general may have shown to a certain
degree his liberal, not to say radi-
cal sympathies, while having the
heir-apparent Oh the gridiron of cross
examination, he was manifestly tender
in his handling of the royal witness. In
fact the general opinion formed in the
court room was that there was evidently
tacit agreement between the leading
counsel, Sir Edward Clarke and Sir
Charles Russell, that they were to fish
for and get nothing from the prince
which any other witness could supply.
Only once did the Prince of Wales be-
tray any open sign of impatience, and
that was when Sir Charles Russell asked
"What did Mrs. Wilson say to you about
SirWilliamGordon Cumming cheating?'
The prince replied somewhat shortly
and angrily, it appeared: "She said
very little" And there the subject
was dropped, as any lawyer can see, at
a most important stage.
This testimony closed the plaintiffs
case, and urt then adjourned until to-
morrow.