The times., 1901-06-23
MUST Be TRIED BY PEERS
Earl Russell Committed in the
Bow Street Police Court.

Judge CurIer Testifies to the InvaI-
idity of the Nevada DiVOrce-The
Strange Situations of the Defend
ant and the First Countess
LONDON, June 22-Earl John Francis
Russell, who was arrested last week on a
charge of bigamy and released under So,VJ5
bail after a preliminary hearing. was
again arraigncd in Bow Street police
court today Mr.. BoGkin represented the
Public Prosecutor. Charles Mathews rep
resented the Earl. and Arthur Gill the
countess. The case was heard in the mag
istrate's private room, which was made
ouately small and crowded to its utmost.
Earl Russell was seated at the m&gis-
trate's table. His second wife, once Mol
lie Cooke. for marrying whom the charge
Of higamy was preferred, was present.
Evidence was first presented to prove
the EarI's marriage to Mabel Scott, the
first countess, in 1890. Mr.. Brown. assist
ant public prosecutor. testified that the
prosecution OF the Earl had been under
taken by his department without interfer-
ence from outside, and that he had gone
TO the United States to collect the evil
dence which resulted in the Earls arrest
Mr. Mathews requested that a copy of
the Earl's American divorce from Mabel
Scott be put in evidence. Mr.. Bodfdn
pointed out that this divorce was no part
Of his case but. if necessary. he would
be able later to prove the American de-
cree invalid. He, however. complied with
the request of the E,arl's counsel and
handed in a copy to the court. rms
showed that a summons had been sent to
the first countess and that, on her failure
Of har- a
fault had been made. Mr.. Mathews did
not cross-examine Mr. Brown. 1t is un-
derstood that the case for the defence
will be reserved for another court.
Judge Curler. of Nevada. who married
the Earl and Mollie Cooke, at Reno. in
April. 1900. then took the stand and ide1-
tilted the Earl as the man who had III
troduced himself or been introduced as
Mr.. Russell Judge Curler deposed that
the marriage had been legally performed
according to the Nevada requirement..
The witness then testified as to the ef-
feet of the Nevada divorce law He
stated that the provisions of the law
had not been lived up to in the EarIs
case. either as regarding publication OF
the summons weekly for six weeks or as
regarding the lapse of an interval OF
forty days after publication Therefore,
the witness said. the decree was not good,
even in Nevada, as the date of the last
publication was April 1S. 1890, and the
decree was dated April Il, of the same
year.
Earl Russell was committed for trial
at the next sessions Of the Central Grim
inal Court. and was held in the same bail
as heretofore $500 The next sessions of
this court begin on Monday next
al of RI fri
on the charge of bigamy promises to re-
suit in a series of Gilbertian developments
which have been unparalleled in the his
tory of English Jurisprudence. Although
Earl Russell cannot waive the privilege
of the peerage and must be tried before
the House OF Lords, it is certain that he
would prefer to be tried before an ordi-
nary jury, as he has been an uncompro-
missing leYeler all his life. His opinions
on this point got him into trouble with the
Oxford University authorities and still
make him somewhat of an Ishmaelite in
English life
Earl Russell scarcely ever enters the
House of Lords, but is an assiduous at
tendant at the meetings of the London
County council, where he votes with ex-
treme labor progressives and sits for
working class constituency with a Social
list colleague. None OF these friends OF the
Earl are possible jurors as the latter viii
be confined to members Of the hereditary
chamber whose privileges he has so
strongly opposed.
The situation of the first Countess Rus
sell is equally strange. She sought a di-
yorce from him in London on the grounds
of bigamous marriage to Molly Somerville
Cooke, in Nevada. The court refused to
grant her a divorce, holding that the ac-
ton of the Earl in Nevada was not
bigamy, but adultery, for which the Eng
iish law does not grant a wife divorce. 1t
viii give her a judicial separation, but
will not allow her TO re-marry.
If Earl Russell IS convicted before the
House OF Lords of bigamy in the United
States her position will not be bettered,
because a peeress cannot take her trou-
bles before a house Of peeresses. and an
English divorce court judge would be
bound by the precedents OF his court,
which has already declared against the
Nevada marriage, especially as Judge
Curler, of Nevada. swore today that he
now held that the decree annulling Earl
RusseI's English marriage was not valid,
even in Nevada
THREE MEN IN A STREET FIGHT.