The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-06-06

custom airy crowd filling the room to the
door was present. AS soon as the jury
were seated the now famous baccarat
counters were passed over to them for
inspection.
Mrs. Lycett Green, the wife of Mr..
the hounds, was called again to the wit
ness box, and the cross-examination Of
the lady was resumed by Sir Edward
Clark, but nothing startling was elected
The defense then called Mrs Arthur
Wilson, the Tranby Croft hostess, and
a party defendant to the suit. She
testified that she distinctly recollected
having observed her son, Mr.. Arthur
Stanley Wilson, looking at her with
puzzled expression from time to time
during the progress of the game of
baccarat, which was played at her
Tranby Croft residence on the night of
September s, $780, The latter, when
her son informed her that he had seen
tho plaintiff, Sir William Gordon Cum
ming, cheat at play, she said to him:
"Iou must not mention it. We must
not have scandal in our house." Tho
witness recollected hearing the plaintiff
asking the banker, tho Prince of Wales,
to pay him (the plaintifD ten pounds
for a counter which he claimed had
been overlooked.
Tho witness also remembered hearing
the Prince Of Wales say on that occa-
sion that he wished the people would
place their stakes where they could be
seen. Tho Prince had spoken in the
tone of man who was seriously annoy
ed. Once subsequently the witness had
seen the plaintiff push ten pound
counter over the chalk line SO openly
that she wondered that none of the
other persons present appeared to have
observed the action.
The witness was then turned over to
the prosecution for cross-examination.
replying to the first question, she de-
pledging secrecy rs to the baccarat dis
coveries at Tranby Croft. She. how.
ever, admitted that the Prince of Wales
Ind appealed to her to say nothing of
the matter. On the night of the Sth of
September, the first night of the play,
the Prince of Wales asked her to have
proper baccarat table prepared for use
on the following evening. This had &C.
Cured before the witness knew any
thing of the alleged cheating by the
plaintiff.
On the night of the Sth, being pressed,
the witness said that the table had not
been rearranged particularly on account
OF Sir William Gordon Cumming, but
because it was hoped that it's rearrange-
mcnt might prevent recurrence OF
disagreeable things
At this point counsel for the plaintiff
began pushing the cross-eXamination
sharply and vigorously. Replying to a
question by Sir Edward Clark the wit
ness said that her husband had objected
to baccarat being played in the house
only because he feared that the play
might become too high among hot
headed youths who were sometimes of
their company. When asked why she
had not told the Prince of Wales, who
brought the gambling party to Tranby
Croft, that her husband objected to bac-
carat being played there, she replied
81 did not do so because we were such n
staid non-gambling party that did not
think much harm could come from the
little play INDUCED in" Tho witness
kept her self possession fairly well
through this part of the examination,
but was visiblY annoyed at the loud
litter for disobeying her husbands
injunction.
In response to other questions by the
plaintiff counsel the witness was forced
to admit that she had sat at play on the
second night, September o, with guest
whom she had heard solemnly denounced
as cheat. Here counsel piled her
rapidly with questions, course that
somewhat confused her.
AT last she was asked point blank:
why did you in your own house and
where it was primarily your duty to pro-
tect your guests sit at play with a man
whom you had heard called a common
cheat?'
To the utter amazement of every one
present the witness replied: 81 had put
it out OF mind. | had a lot of other
matters to think about" To say that
this episode created sensation is 20
put it mildly indeed. When asked
whether she had seen Sir William cheat,
witness replied: eyes, unfortunately,
without doubt" This concluded the
cross-eXamination of Mrs. Arthur VIII
son.
Lord Coventry was the next witness
for the defense. lie stated that when
LYcett Green told him and General
Williams anu young wilson OF Sir Will
Jams cheating, they felt that it was
their duty to the Prince of Wales to in
form him of the conduct of his friend.
When the witness told Sir William of
the accusation against him. Sir William
denounced it as false. and said it was
merely the statement of parcel of in
experienced boys, who were unentitled
to belief Subsequently the plaintiff
repeated this statement in the Princes
presence, and the Prince simply re.