Rensselaer Republican, Volume 23, Number 42, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 June 1891 — A DISHONORED BARONET. [ARTICLE]

A DISHONORED BARONET.

The End of the Great Baccarat Scandal. . The Jury turns a Verdict of Guilty Against Sir Gordon Camming* ' - . . .:. . ■ i i .- - a "Jane 9 witnessed the closing scenes of the great London scandal. The closing arguments were Attended with some sensational Incidents, which were speed - ily checked by the Lord Chief Justice, who proceeded to explain to the jury at length the difference of an action for slander, as this one is, and an action for libel. His lordship added that if the jury found that the defendants had spoken the truth their yerdict should be forthe defendants, but if the jury thought, broadly, that the charges they made were not true and that Sir William Gordon Camming did not do anything wrong in playing baccarat at Trahby Croft in September last, then the verdict must be for the plaintiff. He entreated the jury to keep their minds stead - ily on the evidence only. Continuing, the Lord Chief Justice analyzed at length the evidence given by the plaintiff, which evidence, he said, was well worthy of consideration. The plaintiff, he added, had his counters on a pile of white paper, ami would have been loss likely to be detected if he had, as the others did, put his counters on the cloth of tho table. During another portion of his summing up Lord Coleridge said that the Prince of Wales’ presence at Tranby Croft was sufficient to explain Mr. Lycett Green’s objection to creating a disturbance in the bacarrot room or elsewhere by calling attention to the actions which he objected to on the part of Sir William Gordon Cumming.

When the case was given to the jury everybody seemed relieved. From the time the jury retired to deliberate on their verdict until the moment they returned to the court room only fifteen minutes elapsed, showing, aj parently, that they were ol one opinion as to the merits of the case. During the few minutes the jury was out t£e plaintiff sat quietly in his usual seat, reading a big batch of letters, in the contents of which he seemed much interested. His brother-in-law, Lord Middleton, and other friends who sat near Sir William Gordon Cumming were very nervous and clearly showed it by their and continued hurried whisperings. The five defendants were also nervous and chatting in low tones with their friends, evidently being most anxious to hoar the result and get away from the scenes of their seven days of terror.

A MOMENT OF EXPECTANCY. When the clerk of the court suddenly announced that the jury was ready to report there was a movement of surprise throughout the packed audience present* Then the chatting was resumed again, the short absence of the jury being regarded os decidedly unfavorable to the plaintiff. Everybody may be said to have been in a breathless state when the jury re-entered their box, looking rather frightened and very nervous. After the clerk of the court had polled the jury the Lord Chief Justice, addressing the jury, said: “Gentlemen of the jury, jiave you agreed on a verdict?” “Yes,” almost whispered the foreman, standing up and bowing toward Lord Coleridge. “Is it for the plaintiff or for the defendants?” asked the Lord Chief Justice. “For the defendants!” answered the foreman, in a low voice, The announcement of the verdict wus received with a slight hissing from the galleries, where the ladies congregated, and upon the part of some of those in the body of the court who were In sympathy with the plaintiff.