The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-02-01
MYLIUS is GUILTY
He Is Convicted of Slandering
King George v.
Sentenced to Prison for PERIOD
of One Year.
THE TRIAL is SHORT.
The Defendant Conducts HIS
Own Case Unaided.
Demands That Plaintiff Be Call
ed as a Witness.
THE TRIAL is SHORT

London, Feb. 1.-EdWaro T. Wy SiiN
was today found guilty of defamlng
King George.
He was sentenced to one years I'M
prisonment.
The trial of Mylius, who was chareeu
with circulating in the Liberator oe-
famatory libel against King George was
begun before Chief Justice Alverstone
and a special jury today
The Liberator is a small sheet pup
lshed in Paris, its editor beng EoWaru
II. James who formery We etofes a
practitioner in the United States-
copy of this paper circulated IN TINS
country contained alleged seditlous
statements and revived the story Which
the Archbishop of Canterbury once oe1
MED from the pulpit to the effect that
his majesty. while Prince of Wales con-
tracted a morganatic marriage Win
the daughter of a British admiral at
Malta.
1t is assumed the government brought
the present proceedings less 10 pun
ish the author and circulator or state
ments and opinions offensive TO tne
crown than to set at rest for all time
the story Immediately involving the
person of the king.
The public was admitted to the cour'
room but the police took every precau-
tion to bar suspicious characters.
Among the notables present was Home
Secretary Winston Churchill.
The crown was represented by SIR
John A Simon, the solicitor general'
Sir Rufus Isaacs, the attorney general,
and Public Prosecutors Roylatt and
Muir. The latter conducted the prose-
cution of DIR. Hawley H. Crlppen, VINO
was convicted of the murder of his
wife, Belle Elmore, the actress.
Conducts His Own Case.
Opposing this brilliant array of coun-
L,11t fI1a Infn Mt h
self, who elected to conduct his own
case. 1t is understood he asked that
King George be subpoenaed as a wit
nes but this was not permitted as the
summoning of his majesty to the wit
ness box would be unconstitutional
After the formalities of opening the
proceedings were concluded, Mylius
began his case by demanding the re-
turn of his private letters which he
asserted had been seized in gross vio-
lation of his legal rights. He then
said:
"I wish to ask whether the king is
present. I demand his presence be-
cause every accused person has the
right to be confronted by his accuser
and, secondly, because in libel ac-
tion the prosecutor must be in court in
order that the defendant may see him;
and, thirdly, because there is no proof
that the prosecutor is at present alive
Chief Justice Alverstone replied:
'That has already been the subject
of an application before me and you
know perfectly well that the king can
not be here Sir Rufus then opened
the prosecution. He said the alleged
libel attacked the kings honor and
was intended to lower him in the es-
TEEN of right minded citizens. The
libel, he said, was of the grossest
character and charged his majesty
with having contracted a shameful
marriage at Malta in 1890 with the
daughter of Admiral Sir Michael Sey-
mour by which there had been an
offspring and that his majesty had
''foully abandoned" this lady in order
that he might marry the princess. The
charge had been repeated thrice, first
on November 20 and last in an article
entitled "Sanctified by Gamy," which
said, I'VE We're offered a spectacle of
immortality in its sickly beastly mon
strosity." The king had committed
the crime of bigamy with the compile
ity of the prelates of the Anglican
church. He has superfuity Of wives
like a sultan.
Sets Up an AIibi.
Raising his voice with a dramatic
gesture, the attorney general ex-
Claimed: Il tell you at once there is
not the faintest vestige OF truth in
these statements
Sir Rufus said he regretted the dis
advantage which his majesty suffered
in not being able to appear in court
and deny these allegations under oath
This was an absolute incapacity which
the king could not waive at all. How
ever. the officers of the crown were in
a position to establish beyond doubt
the falsity of the accusations The
king, he continued, was not at Malta
IN 1890. He was never there after
1888 until some years after his mar
riage to the present Queen Mary.
The attorney general said Admiral
Seymour would be called as a witness
and it would be shown that neither hi,
daughter, Mrs. Napier, the wife of a
naval officer, and to whom if was AL
legged the king had been married. nor
her sister. who is dead. ever went TO
Malta before 1893 after the king had
married Princess Mary of Teck.
Sir Rufus concluded by stating that
the suit against Mylius had NOT bea1
brought to protect the monarchy h1It
that the protection of the court had
been sought for the king as a man. A
husband and a father
After formal evidence concerning the
arrest of Mylius had been introduced
Admiral Seymour stepped brisklv to the
witness box. He testified that he had
had only two daughters. The eldest
was born in 1871 and married Cantain
Napier in 1899. The other was borr in
1873 and died in 1895.
Both remained with him at Malta
during the years 1SS5-90 While he was
commander-in-chief of the Mediter
ranean squadron.
The youngest had never married. The
king, he said. never was at Malta whiie
ne and his daughter were there The
second daughter had never spoken to
his majesty and in fact had never seen
him except possibly at a garden marty
the Marlborough house, after his mar.
riage with Queen Mary.
As to his daughter Sir Michael said
she might have seen Prince George
when he was a cadet on the training
ship Britannia in 1879 1t was possible
that she had seen him at court but
certainly she had never spoken to hin,