a WALES NN COURT. carat Seandal Case, THE LEGAL TALENT RNGAGED, A last Nistor rooeedings in London oable | and hb == later the famous ccarat case salam m.) fixed for the hearing = thie case, the oourt-room was filled with crowds of fashionable people. The. first tremor of excitement by the arrival, in the court room, of Sir William Gordon Oumming, the plaintiff, mpani conn jamming, accompanied by the ed is version of the Tranby Oroft affair. The plaintiff said the Prince of Wales * the oo- +, Bept. Tranby Oroft and the former said, ‘‘Cum- ming, some’ 00- here have ayin Mh. Some A object our manner 0 carat.” To this Sir "Ooventry, the tiff said, then re- peated his former remark, adding that (Cumming) had, while play- bacoar: revious evening, resorted to foul play. T The plaintiff ssid he then replied that this wasa foul, abominable — and a deliberate falsehood, adding, Coventry and General that he placed the whole matter whens in their hands, and that after dinner, at the suggestion of Lord Coventry and Gen. Williams, he, the plaintiff, had an interview with the Prince of Wales, to whom he repudiated the oharge and aasid: * Your yal Highness will see what a terrible thing this is for me. I, who have been attempting for twenty years to lead the life of an officer and gentleman.” To this according to the plaintiff, the Prince of Wales replied : ‘‘ What oan you do ? There are five accusers.” Sir W To this the Prinose replied :, “* What is the use of that ? There are five people against you.’ Lord Coventry and Gen. Williams told the plaintiff the only way to svoid “a horrible scandal '’ was to sign the document which had already been ednoed and read in court by Sir Edward Biark. The plsintiff added: “I said. wey. shia is tantamount to an admission of ; but I was eventually persuaded to om the document by Gen. Williams Lord Coventry, whom I regarded as bein true and intimate friends.” Sir William ae —_ that on the second night} ¥' oomrat games at Tranby Oroft (ie em Ag the Prince of Wales was baaioee, ac 4 Avtsne Btanley Wilson won five * “ “coups” ranning, which Oum- ming thought was g “for a novice.” At the ey of the game, the laintiff continued, ‘ the Prince of Wales aughingly = ‘Cumming, how came you to win so much ?’ referring to the fact that I had iy "2296 in two nights’ play. To this I replied: ‘ Well, sir, I could not help winning with such luck,' showing the Prince a card on which I had kept marked, under the headings of ‘ Banker’ ‘ Player,' the exact number of times which the banker = player had won during the ing's The plaintiff answered Bir Eaward Clark's questions in a clear voice, which could be heard all over the court-room, and kept his back turned toward the Prince of Wales, a fact which was considerably comm mented a - favorably by the audience. While giving his William ge on the edge of the witness-box, calmly surveying the court and its ocoupants, ond oocasion- ally nodding alightly to an a C) "7 as among the peo — concluded his eoinony with a solemn and impressive denial that he ever cheated at cards at Tranby Oroft or any- where THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. The crogs-examination of the plaintiff noed by Sir —- Russell. tiously that they did not resort to foul play.’ “ Pardon me," cried Sir William,quickly | on dra sponse Let tier — sparklin — his wh oting considera’ amaeh, “ ew yon reading from any letter of mine?" Bir Charles Russell replied : ** Yes. Does this document he Coventry Bay to Give ‘Bridene | in the Bae-|Grot, fawn th be present | conditions set hey in the document he ™ | (th the | toutstained. Williams grate evidence jamming re ‘*My God, what do you mean ” his and | #0 ais interview had by him with Bir to | longer than was absolutely necessary, there came the only really exciting scene of the y rd o*F ardly had the Solicitor-General fin- : ished his depreostory sentence, when a in | to examine him, as follows io his guilt, he would Hot have signed the document presented to him. aH —_}— “Russell Feed & letter which | ir W Gordon Cumming had handed before lea Tranb Oroft, in which the baronet said eral Williams would tell the Prince of Wales that he (Sir William) had been en by the advice given him by aleo said he would never touch another card the wish that his ven to somehospital. Answer- put to him 4 a. Ras- said received tiff teal a on a Prinoe of Wales and b ‘Lora Coventry and Gen. Williams, saying that the signera of the memorandum did not wish to be hard, but he (Sir William) must olearly understand that, in the face of the overwhelming | Oole ted, it was useless to ttempt todeny the accusation against bi m, me that, ag Jong as he complied with the ex — be given el a RSet had signed, ailence would be The court soon after adjourned until to- morrow. The Prinoe of Wales wag present hout the ings, and seemed to take considerable interest in the y as by the —— Tuseday) night's London cable ollowing — of bgt — = Bg in the bacoarat Prinoe of Wales cele’ ag ane cant had resulted in m? p of the the case. which was signed gentlemen and two of the care, n Sir William, until that been interviewed by Gen Williams and Lord Coven denied the truth When the ir William's ams and g& # examination. THE CROSS EXAMINATION. Sir Oharless Ruasell then questioned the Prince on behalf of the defence. In reply to questions Sir Oharles the Prince testified that he believed he had also seen in this connection Prince Edward and Oapt. Somerset, in addition to the three gentlemen to whom sertain statements had been made by three other gentlemen of the rty. Witness was not informed that two adies, whom be had not seen at the time, alleged that they also had witnessed dia- honest play by the plaintiff. He'did not recall whother ~~ one of the three gentle- men said anything about withdrawing a portion of the stakes, or that Sir William eystematioally placed on the board a larger stake than bad originally m place there. Continuing, the Prinoe stated that the memorandum or the unfortunate affair whioh had been and submitted to Sir William ie hie ature did not come from him. It was simply a proposi- tion made by Lord Coventry in which witness acquiesced. Witness was greatly distressed by the ocourrence. Refe Wi in presence of General bo Som witness ret that the plaintiff a him whether he believed the atenanba made against him, and which involved his honor. Witnees did not, however, recollect what had been his reply to the question. Wit- ness was quite certain that during the conversation the plaintiff had intimated his willingness to have the matter of his conduot referréd to the Dake of Oambridge ; also remembered that in reply to bia sug- gestion General Williams intimated that e did not think he a of Cambridge would look upon the affair as leniently as we did. The Prince, continu. ing hia statement, which was not inter- rupted, declared that he had, out of d for Sir William, desired to act as leniently as was possible under the circumstances. The date of the document submitted to Bir illiam was omitted at the time of writing, and had been affixed on the same night after the plaintiff _ ——— his signature to the paper. tness was asked how recently he had been in the com- pany of plaintiff. His reply, which was, “T bave not met onl —— sinoe the un- hres ooourrenc der investiga- tion. not to meet him in the future,” was de- livered with somewhat of an emphasis and created a sensation. =z QUESTIONS OF A JUROR. When Sir Charles Russell had osncluded bis examination, and after Sir Edward Clark, on behalf of the tion, had ith courtly grace assured the Prince that he would not be detained one moment juryman, after unexpectedly indicating his that the witness should not leave proceeded calmly and deliberately Juror—Are the snembers of this jury to understand that a were acting as banker ose two occasions and [awning of the malp: Prinoe of Wales Tt is oct @ very easy matter for yo banker when dealing fey see an atkind. Especially is this true when ‘het game is being aya 4 in the country houses of friends, where one woul not for a moment suspect any person pre- sent of unfsir Back at the Baiz. apparent came the per. sistent juror with er question, which the Prinos lied that when the inst the tiff were made charges aga with so much unanimity he considered he no} had no other alternative than to believe in their truth. <n 7 determined juror signified ugh with the Prince, Br Edward Olark asked a question in redirect examination which had rile twee AL ustice, were | members of the bar and — the ladies, and commen: m behalf of his ooourren This | would ; concluded the is of the Prince on the I should Soowider it more agreeable} of + proximity » | testimony to-day the plaintiff's oase was a and the court adjourned until to- A mia last Wednesday igen London cable 8 her to be th ra the heir-apperent, opinion with his experience of yesterday, would find some excuse which would enable him to escape any further attendance in court. ae the astoniahment of almoat pie the Lord Chief Justice settled himself comfortably in the cushions of his obair and had just — the solemn “ hem, ae age something, when iba Ed Prince of Wales, accompanied by his faith: fal Private Beoretary, Sir Francis Knoll entered the court, ee condition i would seem than u ent appeared. Sir Richard Russell, leading counsel for the defendants slowly rose + Hae his seat, bowed to the Lord Chief J to the coed his address Sir clients Charles said his — had to | been, much against their wishes, to take the course they had ane, | ‘here were concerned in this “melancholy busin continued Sir Charles, ali, of whom have known the laintiff, Sir William Gordon Cumming, ‘or many years, The plaintiff admitted, he said, that his accusers were acting con- ee = this matter, and the jury impossible to believe that thoze enti were mistaken in regard to the character of the goer gle ype on the nights of the 8th and 9th of Bepte ber, 1890. The plaintiff had adeultiet ‘shat they were all age be honor and hon- esty,and having made the charges they adhered to them, and the plaintiff had not asked to be confronted with either of his tiff, ——_ Sir Oharles Russell, had egrading, humiliating dooument, and he “aid not take steps to bring his slan- derers to justice. Then he turned upon those who had been quite prepared to keep their agreement, though he, in their eyes, was a dishonored man. now, how about the three principal actors and the plaintiff's action in regard to them? Do you, gentlemen of the jury, doubt that the plaintiff knew that each cf those gentlemen believed him guilty? He knew that in their eyes he was no longer in the ostegory . honorable men. Was it conceivable that an innooent man under such circum. stances should bear such an odious burden on him? In describing the events which took place in Mrs. Arthur Wilson's parlore at Tranby Oroft, Cherles Russell said Arthur Stanley Wilson had witnessed repeated acta of cheating upon the part of Cumming, and that when Wilson turned to Berkel Levets and whispered, ‘‘Cumming ia cheatin on Levett replied, ‘‘ Nonsense, you are m But, added Sir Oharles, Berkeley Levett, after receiving this com- game, watcbea Cumming's play, and saw for himself that which Wilson had said was true. After the play was over Wilson told his mother, Mra. Arthur Wilson, and Mr. and Mrs. Lyoett Green, of what he had seen while Cumming waa playing, and they agreed on the following night to have for baccarat playinga p ?_ rly marked table with a line upon it, 9 Mer the player's stake muet FOR THE DEFENCE. Arthar Btanley Wilson, son of the mil- lionaire owner of Tranby Croft, and the leading stockholder in the Wilson line of steamers, entered the witness box as the firsts witness for the defence. Mr. Wilson —— to the fact that on the first night ne baccarat playing at Tranby Oroft, Seghemiber 8th, he saw a red count representing £5, in feomt of Cumming. When the latter’s tableau won, Sir William had his hands in front of him, and he also had another £5 counter in the palm of his right hand. The Baronet, scoording to tness, then anee at Sir Edward — 1] C) placed on the ae evidence oad & great sen- Mr. ; Wilson said he saw the ted by romming the same — d Levett that the informed Levett of what he had observed, Levett _ it was “impossible,” that the witness must be mistaken. ilgon told Levett to ih Bir William. Levett followed his advice, and he also saw the Baronet cheatin the manner described trae, was ‘indignant when asked if he was not a novice in the ga’ rat. Wilson witness fare we to do?” I To this Levett replied ed his} don't have a soandal here. m- | in 1889. munication, paid more attention to the/ 6 said was exolaimed, “ This is too hot." Witness “For in” my own — = don't-ark - He is $ and wae my own ri gray What am m tte do?” wi Wilson aid “T then told my spp what I had veen, and my mother said, ‘For eS : then tol her I would have a proper ta tate prepared for baccarat play ing, § so that a repetition of the conduct wa had observed would be impossible.” Replying to a question on the subject, ison _ there wa no agreemen watch Oumming slay on the second aight. The table used for baccarat on that occa- sion wee a long pantry sable oc covered with green baize. As upon the previous night, the the Prince of Wales occupied the rion saya: The baccarat trial-was continued] of banker, and a. ee acted as be day ee the fone a Bench Division} croupier. The witness the plain. of Her M of Justice.| tiff agsin had a paper mores some of his There wns the ueual large sieninee offcounters on the table. He had other fashionable people. aleg | counters in the breast of his dress, Onks at Aging up to ~_ sonens Lordjooat. The plaintiff, added the witness, took his seat, and the genoraljhad a long thiok carpenter's pencil in bis band. On this pencil the words“ Tranby Orofs” were stamped. Oumming staked a £5 oounter, and the Prince of Phe gave cards to Lady Coventry, who & Seven, Ww of Wales’ turn to take anciar me here which aie, have for- gotten.” The Prince of Wales, saying, “ I wish you would akes forward ee the line bene his i a the isclosures Prince of Wales qaetional Oumming, Levett, and Lycett Green in regard to what they had seen of a wrong nature during the bacoarat Playing, and Green acked to be confronted with the plaintiff. uring his cross- exstaiuation Wilson said baccarat was played at Tranby Croft * But father objected to it, and it was not played there again until the occasion of the Prince of Wales! visitin September, he oross-examination did not prere in picking any material flaws in Wilson’ accusers. The objection to secrecy | story came from Lyoett » who Wilson's oross-examination was not asked that the matter be “ threshed Se when the court adjourned till to- out there and then.’ The plain. ma last (Thareday) night's London cable says: The interest taken on this fourth day of the Tranby Oroft baccarat scandal trial was-apparently as great ag rn manifested upon the three previous sys. Arthur Stanley Wilson, whose demeanor yesterday made him a sort of hero in the drama of society, was the first witness this | ® morning. Mr. Wilson's cross-examination wag continued with a long and very inter- esting discnasion as to the tion of the tables used in playing baccarat at Tranby Croft. Replying to she — of Bir Edward Olark, the leadin 8 counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Wilson said, gave the orders to change the sabien after the dieclosures of the first night’s play, I was ready to stake my life that Sir William Gordon Cumming cheated. My mother and I eat down to play on the second night, Beptember 95h, believing that the chalk line which we had marked on the table would prevent any further attempt at cheatin eY ie word was aid to the od apna tiff 2” asked Bir Edward Olark, in spparent urprise. " Oertainly not,” replied Mr. Wilson, sharply ; ‘‘ what was my word against that of Sir William Gordon Cumming Con- tinuing, the witness said : ‘‘ On the second ‘firat noticed there was something wrong with Sir William Gordon Cumming twenty minutes after the ing of the play. Lady Coventry was sitting between the plaintiff and Gen. Owen ms. I sat around the corner. tiff did The plain not put his bands over the line until he ew his own side had won, and then he put ovara £10 counter, making the stake £16 instead af £65." “ Then,” asked Sir Edward Olark, meat ze Lot not say to Bir Wi * You ac staked £52)" ey ilson re “ Because there were ladies present, tea ‘ft would have been oo, ae thing to have had a row “ ‘And, " roonsinmedd the Solicitor-General, “ you went on staking ro money after seeing the plaintiff cheat ?” * Yes," on sgl dan ame Berkely T.3. J. toni, r ; coal in the a Sars, a regiment of which Sir WwW Lt lieutenant-colonel, and one of the defend- a suit bro by the latter, was La counter which the vorleiatitt had non over the line. Oumming | ed, there is the | 02 ig was —— m play ind indulged in. response’ to. other on = — plaintifs counsel witness was geod gg recto D gy Bo which Mr. Lyocett Green made the state- ment to the Pres ot _— of what bed vod discovered. On tbat occasion position. and he (Sir William) is Witness had faithfully kept the compact of secrecy. When the plaintiff had asked witness, Geel» — you say you were mistaken?” the latter re uy would for your sake and for the sake of the regiment, but Lycett Green won't, I saw you adding counters.” MR. LYCRTT GREEN SWORN. Mr. Lyoett Green, son-in-law of Mrs. ileon, was sworn. This witness oon- firmed the testimony ine by Mr. binge ao far ag it referred his part in the matter at issue. While this witness was giving his sary a the foreman of the special j handed up to Lord Chief Justice Coleridge « letter which had been sent toa joryman and which was couched in threatening aud regim: be | captain.” abusive language. Mr. Lyoest Green then turned toward the Chief Justice and said: “Your Lord- a 2 hn er received a letter of the me description as that which has jast con handed up to you by the jary.” — his ee the witnesa graphically events of the second night's play at Traaby Croft. when he had distinotly seen the tiff push d. Immediately u hearing | — ‘e* the line, when he (passe this Oumming pushed over the lines ten-| declared. It had been the first ceapaiee ct however, rose — the table oe the room. After wi paceutng rom the pa witness had Ae r note in to Mrs. Art art id Wilson, reading as follows: *T have nae ir William Gordon gong! cheating and cannot remain in m longer. Bomething ought to be Bota 35 a stop the " Later the witness bad asked to be confronted with the plaintiff if the latter denied his guilt. MRS, LYCETT GREEN EXAMINED. Mrs. Lyoett Green, wife of the previour witness and daughter of Arthur Wilson sen., was the next witness. Mrs. Green, said thatin 1888 Sir William Cumming dined at her house and there taught her to ay baccarat. . Green explained that she had previously met the plaintiff at the houee of her mother, and she had inti- mately known a relative of Sir William Cumming, for which relative she still had & great regard. Mrs. Green then described the position of the bacoarat ae Boge the games played at Tranby Croft in Sep- tember last, and said she heard the Prinoe of Wales several times tell plaintiff to put hie stakes where they could be seen. Upon eof these occasions Cumming replied, “It is on the paper in front of me.” Mrs. Green said shé nobiced plaintiff on the night in question was “in juok, = nothing more."’ Witness then ve }acoount of the event during the sestal — of the baccarat playing, after she d been informed Oumming had been cheating. Mrs. Green's testimony in this spect agreed in every essential detail with then ai given by the’ previous witnesses on behalf of the lt Mrs. Green tively declared that she had not mentioned the unpleasant bacoarat incident to any- body but her husband until legal action wae brought against herself and the other de- fendants by Cumming. Witness replied very positively in the peg aa ny and was then allowed to step out of the The defence then called Mra. Arthur Wilson, the Tranby Croft hostesa and & party-defendant to the osuit. Sir Charles bowed courteously to he lady as she entered the witness box and at onoe procesded with er examination. Witnesa testified she distinctly recollected h: son looking at her with as puzzled expression from time to during the p as of the ome of baccarat rogre on the night of Seps. 8 Later her son informed her that he had seen the plaintiff, Sir Wm. Gordon CGumesing.? cheat at play. When her son informed ~ of the Sciection by him of Sir William honest play witness said to must not mention it, 7 have «a scan in Onoe witness had seen the ‘Plainti push a £10 counter over the chalk that she wondered that none of the othere observed the action. Witness was then "lturned over to thé prosecution for cross-examination. She mr roa that the Prinoe of Wales h had appealed to her to say nothing of the matter. ioe the night of — “io of September + ce asked ve a were such a . » that I did not think come from the little — “Why did you, in — own ouse, and where it wag your duty to tect your ar sit at pla