THE BACCARAT SCANDAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9133, 4 June 1891, Page 2

THE BACCARAT SCANDAL.

[By Electric Telegbaph.—Copybight,] (Per Press Association.) London, June 2. (Received June 3, at 10 45 a.m.) The Prince of Wales was examined to-day in connection with the baccarat case. He stated that he did not see any irregularity in in Sir W. Gordon Cumming's play, and it was Lord Coventry who first suggested that he (plaintiff) was not playing fairly. There were so many of those present who said that they had witnessed the unfair play that he could not heip believing the accusation. (BeoelvedJune 3, at 8.10 p.mi) The baccarat case was resumed to-day. Sir Charles Russell's cross-examination of Sir Gordon Gumming is regarded as damaging to the plaintiff's case. The evidence to-day elicited but few new facts. Plaintiff, under cross-examination, asserted his absolute innocence. As regards the play, he explained 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 eye-witnesses that they had observed Sir Gordon Curuming 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 Camming that to play with his hands on the table did not look well. He said Mr Lysett Green, son-in-law of Mr Arthur Wilson, at whose residence the offence 13 alleged to have been committed, was the first to accuse plaintiff of cheating, and that Mr Berkley Witt also witnessed it.

(Special, to Press Association.) London, Jane 3, (Received Juno 4, at 0.30 a.m.) In his evidence in the baccarat case, H.R.H. the Prince of Wales said that in the interview he had with Sir William Gordon Cumming at Tranby Court on the night of the alleged cheating, the latter denied the charge. Witness did not observe any cheating himself, but the charges made by others were bo unanimous that there was no other course but to believe Sir William guilty. The case for the plaintiff has closed.