THE BACCARAT CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 9431, 4 June 1891, Page 5

THE BACCARAT CASE.

EVIDENCE OE THE PBINOB OP WALES. f Special to Press Association/} (Received June 3, at 10.45 a.m.l liONuON, Jura 2,

H.E.H. the Prince of Wales was examined in the baccarat case to-day. He stated that he did not see any irregularity in Sir W. Gordon On mining’s play, and it was Lord Coventry who first suggested that plaintiff was not playing fairly. There were so many of those present who said they had witnessed the unfair play that he could not help believing the accusation. [Seo«i vedJune 3, at 8 p.m.l LONDON, Jxnrx 2. The baccarat case was resumed today. Sir Charles Bussell’s crossexamination of Sir Gordon Gumming is regarded as damaging to the plaintiff's case. The evidence today elicited but few new facts. The plaintiff, nnder cross-examina-tion,, resorted to absolute innocence as regards the play, and explained that his winning from the Prince of Wales and others was owing to the system of his play. The examination of the Prince of Wales was brief, and his evidence colourless. -He said that the statement of five eyewitnesses that they had observed Sir Gordon Camming cheating, evidently influenced his judgment in the matter.

General Owen Williams was examined, and admitted that he did not see any cheating on the part of the plaintiff. Still, he and others signed the confession in order to secure the required silence. The witness declared that the Prince of Wales told Sir Gordon Gumming that to play with his hands on the table did not look well. He said Mr Lysett Green, son-in-law of Mr Arthnr Wilson, at whose residence the offence is alleged to have been committed, was the first to aconse the plaintiff of cheating, and that Mr Berkley Livitt also witnessed it. [Received Jana 4, at 12.40 a.m.] JVHK 3. In his evidence, H.E.H. the Prince of Wales said that in an interview he had with Sir William Gordon Gumming at Tranby Court on the night of the alleged cheating, the latter denied the charge. The witness did not observe any cheating himself, but the charges made by others were so unanimous that there was no other course but to believe Sir William guilty. The-me for the plaintiff has closed.