ENGLISH SOCIETY SCANDAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 17, 20 January 1934, Page 4 (Supplement)

ENGLISH SOCIETY SCANDAL.

STRANGE CASE OF EARL RUSSELL,

MOTHER-IN-LAW SUED FOR CRIMINAL LIBEL — LONELY PEER ASSAILED BY POISON TONGUES — TITLED LADY'S DETERMINED EFFORT FOR REVENGE—REMARKABLE COURT DISCLOSURES—DYING DEPOSITIONS SUBMITTED — CLASHES BETWEEN BENCH AND BAR.

Marshall Ilall was in low water financially at the time of his second marriage, as a result of a critical illness in 18!V5 following the trial of Jabez Balfour. His name had disappeared for many months from the law reports, and he needed the full glare of a big case to bring him again before the public, states Edward Marjoribanks in his book on the famous cases of Marshall Hall.

they were legally bound to do to sccure an acquittal.

Arthur Newton, the solicitor, again came to his assistance with a brief for the defence in the Russell—Scott case.

There can be no concealing that Marshall Hall was on the wrong side in "this case; but that docs not in the least detract from the credit due to him in his long fight, against a hostile judge, and for a hopeless cause..

It is l ight and proper, as Marshall Hall often said, that anybody, however black circumstances imay appear against him, can have at his command a courageous and competent advocate. He fought every inch of the ground, and, as a result of the case, his name once more was before the public, and bis reputation justified the Lord Chancellor in granting him a eilk gown. This case was memorable for his frequent duels with Mr. Justice Hawkins, in which, that famous judge more than once received as good as he give. Alone in the World. Lord Russell, a brilliant young nobleman, rather alone in the world, had left Oxford early, and amused himself by sailing his own small yacht. While on one of these expeditions he made the acquaintance of a Lady Scott, who lived with her daughter Mabel by the side of the Thames. She was an extravagant woman, with little money to support her extravagance; she had a quick feminine gift of sympathy, and scon won Lord Russell's close affection, and letters passed between them of the most affectionate nature. He married her pretty daughter in February, 1890.

.So Marshall Hail cleverly seized the opportunity which offered itself and pleaded guilty, in spite of the wily offers of Mr. Justice Hawkins that he should no allowed to amend his plea bo that he should only have to prove so much of the justification as the other witnesses could speak to. Bricks Without Straw. But no bald account of the case can show to its proper advantage Marshall Hall's brilliant attempt to make bricks without straw. Mr. Justice Hawkins refused at the outset his application for bail, though he granted it to Lady Scott. "The police," observed Marshall Hall meekly, "raise no objection." "I don't care a farthing for the police," was the judge's hot reply; "they are not superior to -myself at present." "Not' even, I believe, in their own estimation," murmured the unruffled advocate. But the judge was not the only opponent with whom Marshall Hall crossed swords in this action. His friend Sir Frank Lockwood, usually the wittiest and most nrbane of men, found his patience very nearly exhausted during this long and trying case. "Absurd," he said, audibly, at one cf Marshall Hall's questions put in crossexamination. The latter hotly asked for the protection of the judge. "Coming from 6uch a source, euclh an observation is unpardonable," he said. "Very well," said Hawkins, "don't pardon it." The honours were with the judge this time. * Dying Deposition. After Christmas the contest was resumed; as Ivast lay dying, counsel had attended to take down his dying deposition, which under statute would have been admissible in evidence. But the doctors had certified that the dying man could not

The marriage was a failure from the very start, and, in May, Lady Russell left her husband, and never lived with hini again. A woman friend seems to have poisoned her mind, and she believed rumours repeated about him; she objected to one of _ her husband's friendships, and filed a petition for judicial separation from him on thege grounds. Her case broke down completely, and her counsel apologised for his client's allegations in open court. Lady Scott, however, after the case was over, repeated the charges with aggravation in an interview published in 1892. "Pure and Innocent." The next stage in the remarkable history was when Lady Russell, having in 1891 petitioned for judicial separation, now, goaded by her mother, asked the court for a restitution of her conjugal rights! She said in the .box that it was her wish to return to her husband, whom she now knew to be "pure and innopent." He, however, cross-petitioned for a judicial separation on the grounds of her "cruelty" in the broadcasting of vile charges of immorality against him. The jury found that the charges were untrue and made maliciously, and amounted to "cruelty"; they therefore gave him a judicial separation. But, like Wellington's soldiers, Lady Scott did not know when she was beaten; moreover, she had always played a double game. She sent her son-in-law a Christmas card inscribed: "God grant that this time next year you will be with people who love you, and that all will be forgotten." And at the same time she was writing to a man named Dickinson, one of the many detectives in her employ: "Have you any news to send? How strange if you are the person to bring the proper person to justice. I am sure you have the wrong man; but any man who proves anything will not only get my thanks, but enough, to set him up for life. We have now enough evidence to hang any ordinary man, but it is not enough for us." The charges which implicated Lord Russell's friend were now again remembered aricl broadcast by Lady Scott and her daughter, and he had to bring an action to vindicate his character. Lady Russell made the completest apology in Court, but to pay the costs of this action the bailiffs had to be put into her house. Lady Scott was now determined on her revenge; she remembered that Lord Russell had sailed his own little yacht, as a young man of 21, and her detectives discovered the whereabouts of three members 1 of the crew, named Cockerton, Aylott and Kast. Bought Out. The last named 6he purchased out of 1 his regiment stationed in India, enter- . tained him royally in Bombay and brought him back in triumph to England. She concocted a statement o£ the most defamatory kind, which she got them to sign, she printed the document and circulated ' it to the members of the Lords, Commons, 1 to officers in the Army and to many '<■ others. ; The only possible course was for Lord J Russell to prosecute her for criminal libel, with her hired associates. It was a brave 1 thing to do, with the Wilde case fresh 1 in the public memory, but the only coursc open. George Santayana, the famous writer and philosopher, came forward to give evidence on his friend's behalf. Frank Lockwood, Charles Mathews and Travels Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; Lawson Walton for Lady Scott, and Marshall Hall for the three men. The defence set up was justification. Tne case occupied twelve whole days in the Old Bailey, and was adjourned over Christmas owing to the illness of the principal witness for the defence, Kast. A most unusual thing then happened— - this prisoner died before the case recommenced, and, with their chief witness dead, it was now hopeless for the defence to establish a justjftjation for the whole libel, whiel ■ hafW& justified it in toto,

a have stood cross-examination, and so no 1 deposition was taken. 1 The evidence of Kast, was, of course, > vital to the defence, and Marshall Hall 1 was rightly determined to extract his 1 evidence the exact circumstances under I which the deposition had been refused. He l maintained that the dying man was perfectly fit for cross-examination at reason- [ able length, but that the doctors had certis fled that he was unfit, simply because the prosecution had stated they must cross- , examine for hours. | "That is a very simple method," he argued, "to avoid the statute whereby the deposition of a dying man can become evidence. No dying man, ex hypothesi, , can stand cross-examination for hours." Mr. Justice Hawkins was, however, not ' impressed, and said that Mr. Marshall Hall \ was only pursuing this line of question for • prejudice. "Justice, my lord, not prejudice," said , the advocate. , "Prejudice," retorted the judge. "Justice, not prejudice," repeated the advocate, and there the matter was allowed ; to rest. On the last day before sentence was given, Hawkins sent for the counsel for the defence, complimented them all, especially Marshall Hall, on their conduct o£ the defence, and told them that if the defendants would withdraw their statements and apologise he would bind them over. Lady Scott's attitude made such a courfee impossible, and at the very last moment she stated in 'court that she believed, in every word of the libel. The other defendants did not instruct their counsel to apologise, and a sentence of imprisonment was therefore unavoidable. Finally, when all was over but the sentence, Marshall Hall made an undoubted score against the judge. In his plea in mitigation, he made much of the fact that his clients had at any rate believed the statements of Kast, who had died and left them unprotected. ' About to sentence them, the judge, turning to Cockerton and Aylott, said: "Before the magistrate, when you were asked for the defence which you had, ea<jh of you, to the charge, you had an opportunity, if you thought fit, to state what that defence was." Mr. Marshall Hall: My lord, I do protest. I tell your lordship, the magistrate declined to allow three persons to go into the box. On the j*dge stating baldly, "I do not believe that," Marshall Hall, quick to take affront and thinking that his personal honour was being assailed, began ostentatiously to gather up his papers and made as if to leave the courj, his face flushed with anger. "I cannot take any further part in these , proceedings," he said, "and shall therefore retire from the court." The judge thereupon apologised, and said he had not meant the matter personally. The Countess. Mr. Lawson Walton came to his colleague's assistance, and established the fact that the sworn evidence of the defendants had been offered at the police court, and that the magistrate had in fact refused to hear them,' The judge got over his mistake with very little grace. "I will pass the matter over," he said. But the sentence was a light one, eight months for each of the prisoners; and it may well be that Marshall Hall's shrewd blow in the last round had some effect on it. The judge had made a false point, and it had been shown to be false. Lady Scott persisted in her allegations to the end, and interrupted the judge's summing.up again and again by offensive comments. When- sentence was pronounced, Countess Russell uttered a loud shriek, audible even outside the court. So ended this famous prosecution for criminal libel in a victory for Lord Russell. Unhappily it was not the last legal episode in the history of this miserable marriage. The case is an important milestone in Marshall Hall's forensic career, because as a result of it he decided to apply for a silk gown.