Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-03-27
BAR0N'S SUIT FAILS
De Forest SIander Action in
London CoIIapses.
WITNESS FAILS PLAINTIFF
Lord Derby Says He Has No Recol-
lection Of Alleged Utterances.
THR0NG PACKS COURTROOM
Wealthy Peer Sought Damages From
His Mother-in-Law and
Latter's Brother.
WITNESS FAILS PLAINTIFF
THRONG PACKS COURTROOM

by the wealthy young Baron Arnold De
Forest against his mother-in-law, Lady
Mary Gerard. and the latter's brother,
Henry Miner, for slander, was tried to-
day. and collapsed suddenly when Lord
Derby, to whom the ISLANDERS were al
legged to have been confided, took the
stand and SWore that he had no recOl-
lection of the same. Sir Edward Clarke
counsel for the plaintiff, thereupon an
nounced that he was unable to proceed in
view of the lack of evidence, and judg-
ment for the defendants was returned.
The case was heard by Justice Darling
in the kings bench division and, as all
Of the characters are we'll known, the
courtroom was crowded almost to suffo-
cation by fashionable throng. AS many
more vainly besieged the closed doors.
clamoring for admission. Seldom has a
more notable array of counsel been engaged
in civil action. and a bitter contest was
expected. The list of witnesses, most OF
whom are prominent in the social world.
was SO long that these would have been
sufficient to fill the courtroom had all OF
them been present. Many, however, failed
to appear.
Wife Fled From Home.
Baron De Forest. whose marriage to
the widow of Menier, the chocolate man.
ufacturer Of France. was annulled, sub
seQuently entered society and married
Miss Gerard, who is very wealthy, having
inherited most Of the fortune Of the late
Baron Hirsch. The wife, who is de-
scribed as beautiful and accomplished
later vanished from her home. and, ac-
cording to the plaintiff, in the company
80 <ho fn
Guards and friend of the family.
The plaintiff alleged that the conduct
Of his wife was approved by Lady Ge-
rard and Miner In utterances renecung
on him. He charged that they had &C
cused him of having beaten his wife,
haved with such outrageous brutality as
made it impossible for her to live longer
with him.
Milner Makes Denial.
Miner, who married the Duchess Of
Montrose. denied having uttered the al
legged slanderS and set up ahe alter
nate claim that If the slanders were
spoken they were true in substance
and spoken on a privileged occasion in
answer to a confidential inquiry. De-
nial also was made that the plaintiffs
reputation had been damaged.
Sir Edward Clarke opened the pro-
ceedings by describing the married
life of the De Forests. which, he said,
was happy until one night in May,
1909. when, after ball, the baroness
refused to go home with her husband.
Instead, she went away with the young
guardsman. Ashton, and on the next
day confessed to her husband in the
Miner. it was stated. that she had been
at fault. The matter was patched up
and the baroness returned to De For
est.
Last year De Forest sought election
to parliament. He is a liberal and his
wife's relatives are tories. His speeches
in the campaign incensed his wife's
relatives and the alleged slanders
were said to have followed. Soon aft
erward the baroness resumed compan-
ionship with Ashton. it was declared,
and January % De Forest found her we'd
ding ring in an envelope. together with
the announcement that she had gone
away with the lieutenant. thus COM
lilies.
Eloped to Palma.
In the course of his statement Sir Ed
ward divulged that it was the Baroness
De Forest with whom Ashton eloped to
Palma in February. 1910, instead of the
daughter of high court functionary,
as was reported at the time. Subse-
quently De Forest again forgave his
| wife.
| Sir Edward concluded by saying that
| he would call. among witnesses for the
| prosecution. Home Secretary Churchill
Lord Castlereagh and Lord Derby. The
latter was alleged to have heard the
| ISLANDERS, but when he was called to the
| witness stand said that he had no rec
| objection of having heard the remarks
| set forth by the plaintiff.
| At this Sir Edward said that he would
| go no farther. as he was unable to de.
| velop the expected evidence. The case
! against Miner having failed, that
| against Lady Gerard also was dropped
| and the court ruled for the defendants s.