The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-07-07

tile irrelevant matter above referret
to, and to the fact that the exnmina
ton OF witnesses was allowed to di
verge widely from the simple issu,
raised by the pleadings. the trial occupied
the unusually protracted period Of sever
days. Finally, In spite OF n charge by tn,
presiding Judge manifestly marked by al
animus against the defendant. and contain
Ing ut least three misstatements which hi
was constrained to acknowledge and cor
rect by the defendants counsel, the jury
brought in verdict for the defendant
Thereupon. on motion Of defendants coun.
| sci, obviously made with view to meas.
ures for the punishment OF the author OF
aspersions on the defendants character, II
was ordered that all the documents in the
case should be impounded. A motion sub
sequontly made for new trial was denied
and notice OF appeal was given by the
| plaintiffs counsel. Tho opinion was ex-
pressed by Mr.. HURLBERT's solicitor that
tho appeal would never be pressed to a
| hearing; nevertheless, while 1t was nom-
inally pending. no overt steps could be
taken to inflct retributlve justice on the
| plaintiff in the case.
Such was the state OF things when, q
the United States for the purpose Of prose-
cutting inquiries touching the American end
OF what no naturally regarded as conspir-
acy. OF which the woman EVELYN had been
but the tlgurehead; and also for the purpose
of making financial arrangements rendered
necessary by the inordinate cost Of litiga-
ton in England. It was after his arrival in
America, that is to say in June. 1891. that
the appeal from tho order refusing a new
trial was unexpectedly brought to a hear
ing. and unanimously rejected by tho three
Judges constituting tho appellate court
Ostensibly. there was then no obstacle to
the institution OF retributive measures
against the asperser of Mr.. HURLBERr's
character. and. accordingly. his solicitor in
London was requested to procure photo
graphic copies Of all the impounded docu-
ments. In order that they might DO sub
mitted to American counsel. The copies
requested were not forwarded. and finally.
In the autumn OF 1891. Mr. HURLBERr was
informed by his London solicitor that nc
cess to the originals had been refused by
their custodian. AS, however. about the
same time. his English counsel, the Attor-
ney-General, who was not informed Of the
change secretly made In the rule Of court
affecting the custody Of these documents,
assured him that an application in due form
would unQuestionably secure an inspec-
ton OF them. Mr.. HURLDERr was JUS
titled in assuming that he would DO able
to obtain the material requisite for the
prosecution OF his defamer on his arrival in
England. to which country he intended
speedily to return. How and through
xtpb hnr hat lt,rip hn
time intervening between June and No
vember, 1891. Mr.. HURLBERT was shut or
from indicating himself. and purging the
English community. by bringing the de-
feated complainant in Matchmaking suit to
justice. was question which he could not
answer until juno, 1892. when Lord COLE
RIDGES responsibility for the obstruction.
and for something much worse than OBJ
struction. was avowed In the House Of
Lords. For the present we need only add.
to complete the record OF events, that. in
November. 1891. when Mr.. HURLBERr was
on the point of leaving for England for the
purpose Of bringing his defamer to account.
no was suddenly informed that warrant
had been issued by O British magistrate
for the arrest not OF the defeated and dis |
credited plaintiff in the breach OF promise |
action. but Of himself, the twice victorious
defendant in that action. Not only had |
for his arrest on the grounds men |
toned been issued. but application had. it |
was said. been made to our State Depart |
ment for his extradition on that charge.
This was the situation in November. |
1901. as it was known to Mr.. HURhBERr and !
to the public generally on both sides Of the
Atlantic. 1t Is obvious that the conduct OF |
Lord CoLERIDGE in May. 1891. to which. as
we have said. we shall refer upon another
was not an element of the situa-
tion. being neither known nor suspected by
Mr.. HURLBERT until June. 1892. Here. then. |
arose the primary and capital questions:
questions which have hitherto seemed the
only ones OF moment in the case: ques-
lions which have been pressed with vim
1ictive ardor by Mr.. HURLBERT's ene-
mics. and have embarrassed not a
lew OF his well wishers. The questions
ire these: First. why did not Mr.. HURL-
BERT permit tho service upon him OF
OF extradition. and thus allow one
If our Federal courts to review tho
papers on which IN order OF arrest
lad been issued by Il London mag
strate. and decide whether there was
'ven prima facie case for the charge OF
perjury preferred against him Secondly.
I. for any reason Mr. HuELBERT deemed 1t
lnwise to permit the service upon him OF
Of extradition. why did he not, as
man conscious OF innocence. voluntarily
eturn to England and challenge his accus-
RS to make good their charge of perjury
n n court Of iustice2 His political friends.
he Unionists, were still in power and re-
NAMED so until after tho midsummer cleo
ion OF 1892. His private counsel in the
reach OF promise case. Sir RICHARD WEB
TER. was still Attorney General. and. in
hat capacity. the official director and os-
ensible supervisor OF public prosecutions.
What. then. had Mr. HURLBERT to fear from
British juries In November or December.
391. when he had 80 easily obtained from
ne Of them verdict In his favor some nine
lonths before?
To these questions. which may once have
eemed perplexing. and which formerly