New-York tribune., 1911-02-02

perfectly we'll that tho King cannot be
here"
Sir Rufus Isaacs then opened for the
prosecution He said that the alleged libel
attacked the Kings honor, and was In
tended 10 lower him in the esteem OF right
minded citizens. The libel. he said, was Of
the erossest character. and charged his
majesty with having contracted g shameful
marriage at Malta in lteo with the daugh-
ter Of Admiral Sir Michael Seymour by
which there had been an offspring. and
that his majesty had "foully abandoned
this woman in order that he might marry
the princess The charge had been repeat.
ed thrice. First on November % last in an
article entitled "Sanctiied Bigamy." which
said
we were offered a spectacle OF immoral
ity in its sckly, beasly monstrosity. The
King had committed the crime OF bigamy
with the completely Of the rrelates OF the
Anglican Church. He has superf'uIty of
wives like sultan"
Raising his voice, and with a dramatic
gesture the Attorney General exclaimed:
Il tell you at once that there is not the
faintest vestige cf truth in those state
ments"'
After producing letters showing Mylius' :
connection with Mr.. James. si- Rufus said
that he regretted the disadvantage which
his majesty suffered in not being able under
the constitution 70 appear IN court and
deny these allegations under oath. This
was an absolute incapacity which the King
could not waive az Will. However, the Of
fcers OF the crown were in q position TO
establish the falsity Of the accusations.
Admiral Seymour was followed in the
witness box by his daughter, Mrs. Napier.
She testified that she married Captain Ma
pier in 1899. and had never been married
previously. She had seen the King when
he was cadet on the training ship Britain
mia In 1879. when she was seven years old.
She had seen him again at Portsmouth in
1895, and also saw him al a garden party
in 1908, but did not speak to him. Her first
visit 10 Malta was FIVE months after King
George and Queen Mary were married.
Mylius's Weak Defence.
When court Ieconvened after luncheon
LORD Alverstone inquired whether Mylius
had any evidence 70 introduce. The defend
ant replied that he had, but he would first
quote legal authorities. He read quotations
TO the effect that the charge against him
was political. instead of personal, ana
argued that the proceedings were personal
and that rank did not exempt any one from
attendance at court. II the privileges OF
the crown we're sacred the constitutional
rights Of a subject were equally sacred.
When the Lord Chief Justice overruled
the defendant on all the points made Mylius
said: Then | refuse 10 proceed further.
Again asked If he had any evidence to
offer. Mylus replied, What I have said Is
my evidence
The jury quickly returned verdict oi
guilty. In pronouncing sentence LORD Al
verstone said that the most ordinary ihVes-
tigation which any humble man wculd
have undertaken must have shown the
gross charge untrue. Every honorable man
in the civilized world would recoil from the
use of such weapons against any one par
ticularly against the King, TO whom the
whole empire was devoted. Lord Aver
stone then imposed the maximum sentence
Of one year. imprisonment. which ne
added. in the present case was wholly IN
ADEQUATE