The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-07-07
Mr.. Hurlbert's Defence.

In o large octave volume OF some 1--WE
hundred pages. and In tho form OF letter
to Lord Chief Justice CoLERIpaR, Mr.
WILLIAM HENRY II URLBERT has SGT forth
On answer to the criticism expressed In
various quarters on the course pursued by
him In reference to a warrant for his arrest
on charge OF perjury, issued against him
by an English magistrate in November,
1891. He gives his reasons for placing him
self beyond the reach OF a warrant OF ex-
tradition. and for refusing to present himself
voluntarily In England and submit to q trial
byajury on the charge just mentioned. But
tho book before US Is not wholly. or even
chiefly. an answer or defenco. 1t is mainly.
20 fur as tho distribution OF space and
energy Is concerned, q vehement arraign-
ment OF Lord CoLERIDGE for acts by which.
whether intentionally or not. the Lord
Chief Justice Of England has perpetrated n
INDUSTRIOUS and INCAPABLE wrong upon an
American cltlzon. To these acts, which In
terest not Mr.. HURLBERT only, but all his
countrymcn. and all fair-minded English
mon as we'll. We shall refer at length here
after but. as tho secret and inequitable
acts, OF which Mr.. HUnLBERr had been
Victim. which prevented him from bring
Ing to prompt and stern account the
sutlor OF jmputations on his character.
were not known to him until June 1892. or
some six months after the warrant for his
arrest was issued. we conilne ourselves for
the moment to the two primary and capital
questions. which during the last year and
half have been reiterated with exultant
malice by his enemies. and by which even his
friends aud his well-wishers. In the absence
OF the information now supplied. have been
TO some extent perplexed and troubled.
y Before stating those capital questions,
and showing how Mr.. HURLDERr answers
them. We should recall certain dates and
1noidents needful for comprehension of
the situation. as 1t appeared to Mr.. HURI.-
BERT and his friends In November, 1891.
The action entitled EVELYN VS.. HURLBERr
for breach OF promise Of marriage was
tried In London during the week ending
April 40. 1891. On her own assertion. un-
supported by any corroborative testimony
except an apparent resemblance OF hand
writing, the plaintiff imputed to the de-
PENDANT the authorship OF number OF
revolving letters. none Of which. however.
cQntained word which could be twisted
or construed into promise Of marriage.
These irrelevant letters were plainly thrust
into. the case for the exclusive purpose of
blackening the defendants character. Tho
plaintiff also produced diary which she
professed to have kept at tho time. OF
certain alleged occurrences. as to which.
one OF tho Lords Justices subsequently
remarked from tho bench. that either
tho diary must have been concoeted to
support the letters. or else tho letters
wero concocted to support the diary. As
tho defendant could have had no motive
for engaging in any such abusive con-
coction. 1t is clear that. In the mind of the
Lord Justice. the nrtilcor was the plaintiff
We may add that tho plaintiff was unable
10 produce n shred OF valid testimony to
provo that shc had ever so much as soon
the defendant. except Oh ono occasion. tx
Planned By tho defendant In court ard by !