BLACKMAIL OR BREACH OF PROMISE?

Evening Star, Issue 8530, 1 June 1891, Page 4

BLACKMAIL OR BREACH OF PROMISE?

LOVE IN A BUB AND ITS PAINFUL CONSEQUENCES. fFBOM OCR SPKOIAL CORBBfiPOMDIKT.J LoNDQjr, April 2IL The papers have been full this week of a most extraordinary breaoh of promise case, brought by a soi-disant aotress called Gladys Evelyn alias Gertrude Ellis against Mr William Henry Hurlbert, the well-known author of «Ireland Under Coercion,' 'The Frenoh Republio,' and numerous articles, in the leading reviews, etc; Mr Hurlbert, who has many friends in Anglo-Amerioan journalistic and Bohemian circles, la a handsome elderly gentleman, with regular features, iron-grey hair, and what the ladies call a " really fetohing " moustache. Mjss Evelyn's charms are bounteous. She was, however, conspicuously quietly dressed in Court, and replied to even the moßt awkwark personal questions with an artless, gushing oandor truly edifying. Miss Evelyn's counsel explained that his client rented a house at Kensington, where she looked after her deceased Bister's orphan ohild and a lodger—a Mr Jackson. One evening in 1887 MiBS Evelyn was coming home in a buß, when she met defendant. The lady's diary (produced) described the. incident thuß-.—"Bode in bua to Sloane street. After shopping got into the bus going* to West Kensington, in whioh I saw a gentleman. An inexplicable feeling eeiged me. It was as though an eleotric shook passed between us, and as I could see he was experiencing muoh the same strange sensation as myself, I felt greatly agitated. He never took his eyes off me. When I got out Faust followed me. My heart waß beating wildly, and I thought of taking to my heels. But then I thought it would be silly and undignified, and I also had a feeling that I should like to know him. I allowed him to I go through the ceremony of Belf-introduc-tion. After all it was not very terrible, and he seemed awfully nice. Besides, I feel Bure he is a gentleman in every senße of the word." Apparently, however, this faith was misdirected. Faust tempted, and it is fin dt melt Marguerite fell. She made an entry in her diary on 24th May, when the intimacy oommenced. She said : " Something very bad has happened. What a wretched, wretched fool I have been. I feel I shall bitterly regret it, as women always do." From this point Miss Evelyn alleged their amour ran the usual course of suoh illicit connections. Her lover gave her an engagement ring of diamonds (subsequently " popped " at Monte Carlo for L 7), and frequently talked of their marriage. She knew him only as Wilfrid Murray. His habits were very revolting. He sent her (with an artless blush) indecent photographs. Wtyh reference to plaintiffs statement that she knew the defendant first under the name of , Wilfrid Murray, the Attorney General asked the defendant to stand up, and pointing to . him, asked Gladys: "Will you swear that gentleman ib Wilfrid Murray ?" She replied i in the affirmative. The defendant's letters ■ in reference to the marriage were stolen from , her house at West Kensington. She had, , however, get some (Sixty letters of defeb; dant's sent to her between May and December, 1887. Some of them were of an indecent and revolting character. She did not know if there was any reference in the letter to a promise tp marry. He promised bo many times to marry her , both verbally and in writing. Ultimately , Miss Evelyn found out defendant had , a wife already, Then there waß a scene. [ He promised to give witness L6OO a year , and settle Ll5O a year on her, but beyond an occasional L2 he had never sent her any- ] thing. Jn cross-examination Mibb Evelyn . pleaded guilty to various '' slight slips " sinee her desertion by the gajiapt Murray, hut swore roundly that be/ore she met that perverter of youthful Inopoeuce she had made , only one faux pas, and that (with a tender , appealing smile at the jury) was " such a little one." Witness indignantly denied that this "unfortunate acoident" had any- , thing to do with the existence of her " deceased sister's orphan boy." She was not the lad's mamma.

The defence proved to be of a surprising 1 character. Sir Richard Webster said that this was a grojia and wicked attempt to extort blaokjriail from a respectable gentleroan. . Mr Hurlbert was a gentleman who came from 4«>e r ip ft i ftnd na « lived for some years in London, in Italy, and in France, and had been engrossed in literary work. He bad produced books which showed intense study and applioatiop. He was well known, and be lived with bis wife. J)own to 1890 Mr Hurlbert had employed for confidential puiposeß a man who had various aliases, bat whose name was Wilfrid : Murray. It was not neoessary, said Mr Attorney, that he should enlarge upon the nature of the work. In 1882 Mr Murray was engaged in inquiring for Mr Hurlbert into the ajfrirs of a French oompany. Liter Mr rfurjbej>t was attacking political authorities }a America, aiu} surrav was helping him. Murray 'also helped la the preparation of material for the books * Ireland under O-oeicJon/ and 'JFranoe and the Republic* Murray often wrote for Mr Hurlbert. And now came a most romantic point. Mr Hurlbert discovered a long time ago that this Mr Wilfrid Murray wrote a hand %*tonjshingly similar to that of Mr flurlberf a. Luckily Mr Hnrlbert had kept some of Mr H ffW'e writings, and these wouid be produced to show the similarity. He had himself disappeared. Murray was acquainted with Mr Humbert's moverpentet and his knowledge corresponded with and explained the knowledge shown in the plaintiff's story, Murray oame to Mr Hurlbert and told him he ha 4 a friend he wished to get on the stage-rr-a friend he had Jfnown in Paris. He represented that this friend had dramatic talent, and he invited Mr Hurlbert to go and hear her recite. On one oooasion Mr Hurlbert did go to Kensington with Mr Murray, and did hear Miss Gladys Evelyn recite. He did on Murray's acoount write to Mr Wilson Barrett on the lady's behalf. That was all he eyer paw of her. The extraordinary resemblance of the mysterious Wilfrid Murray's handwriting to jfchat of Mr Hurlbert oame out in another example. In September, 1889, a letter, the envelope of which was in the plaintiffs handwriting, was sent Jo Mr Hurlbert's wife demanding that L2OO should be sent in compensation for Mr Hurlbert's treatment of some other woman. There was enclosed in that fetter, by way of evidenoe, another letter by the same band as the other letters put in and attributed to Mr Hurlbert. It was a letter the handwriting of which closely resembled that of Mr Hurlbert. But Mr Hurlbert never wrote tbose'lettersi or §aw them, or heard of them till they were produced In Court. Nor did be ever take the name of Russell, or Murray, or any other name but bis 6wn. This was an extraordinary ease. It was a trumped-up one to extort blackmall. She was, in fact, a most immoral woman, Mr Candy, in opening the oaae, had represented that Hurlbert had led Her astray and debarjohed her tnind with filthy plotures and filthier writings, It was represented that she was a virtuous woman, and all the time it appeared that she had already lived with a man. The diarieß, Sir Richard B»jd, seemed to have been written up, Referring to the gjthy character of some of the letters, ha said if Mr Hurlbert really wrote them be was the vilest wretph who ever lived. The entries this woman made in ber diary—such as about " Dearest Wilfrid teaching me a lot of filthy sensualities " —were not those of a deoent woman. Mr Hurlbert would be positively able to prove that be was elsewhere pn the day he was said to have been in Ghent with Gladys. The Attorney-General also stated [ that Mr Hurlbert would be able to prove an alibi with respeot to other aoousations. On Jubilee Day Miss Evelyn in her diary said " Wilfrid " had given her two tickets for seats at Epitaux's, but that he himself went to jofo the poke of Wellington's party at Apsley House. As a master of faot Mr Hurlbert went to Lord Rothschild's. Tp prove that the diary was prepared for tbo oase he pointed ont that at the time in 1889 when the man Jaofcson was living with her there waa mention of him iff it, as there would have been if it had been a reoopd of her life. The disgraceful charge made in the diary with respeot to the procuring of aborfcion was also, tbe Attorney-General said, got up for the purposes of the ease. There was no doubt, saiS the that it was this woman's intention to come irito«ourt and

pose as a virtuona woman had not the cloak of pretence been dragged away bf WW o»' covertes Mr George Lewie, had made m to ! hermovementa, and it was torthe should he recognised al the man who, nnder the name of Evelyn, lived with her at Tarioua nlaoes, that thb bnrineaa manage* of hen (Mr Jaokson) had shaved of Ma moustache. There was no evidence bronght from the hotels at whtth flarjbert .*na"lfae plaintiff were saidto «have ifeyefl together. In the diary there was one entry about a visit to the Windsor Hotel in Victoria atreet, Why was no witness from the Windsor Hotel brought forward to apeak of that occasion T Buoh evidence always was forthcoming in these cases.