THE SIEVIER-DUKE CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1681, 18 May 1904, Page 60

THE SIEVIER-DUKE CASE.

EXTRAORDINARY REVELATIONS. CAREER OF AN EX-AUSTRALIAN. LONDON, May 12. The action brought by Mir Sievier (a well-known sportsman, and formerly a bookmaker in Australia) against Sir James Duke (not Duke, trainer, as previously cabled) provided a sensational trial, lasting a week. Sievier denied that he was ducked in Adelaide for cardsharping or expelled from the Melbourne Gun Club. He admitted that he was expelled from the Victoria Club, and he also admitted that he was divorced in Australia, but denied that he won £15,000 over billiards from Dr Fife, of Melbourne. He explained that his pi-esentation at a London levee was cancelled because he had been a bookmaker in Australia. He admitted winning £7OO over billiards from Mr Ernest Horn at Monte Carlo, witness filling-in the cheques—one for £6OO in his own favour, and the other for £IOO in his wife’s favour—when Horn was in a chronic state of alcoholism. The bank paid the £IOO cheque, but refused the £6OO one. The hearing incidentally revealed that Sievier undertook to insure every Dunstable volunteer going to South Africa for £IOO, but when the claims were presented he refused to pay, saying that his secretary had bungled the business. Inspector Drew said he had known Sievier for several years, and he had a bad reputation. Two of the men associated with him in some of his gambling incidents revealed during the hearing were notorious cardsharpers. When counsel concluded his address Sievier wept copiously, and the jury stopped case. Mr Justico Grantham severely handled Sievier for eloping with Lady Mabel two days before her marriage with another man, and spending her fortune. HRs

Honor said be bad never heard of a mors disgraceful and discreditable thing than the Dunstable incident. This man had the audacity to secure presentation ah a levee held by the late Queen Victoria, who would rather have given up th® throne than be addressed by such a man. , A verdict was returned for defendant, with costs.