THE SIEVIER CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2623, 22 June 1904, Page 52

THE SIEVIER CASE.

The Sievier slander action was reported fully in the English sporting papers. Counsel for the plaintiff, in his address, made tomewhat of a review of the eituation in his speech, from which I clip the following extracts:—"Sir James Duke posed as the custodian of the honour of the Raleigh Club, and one of the rules of the club was that dn case the conduct of any member, either in or out of it, should be injurious to the character and interests of the club, the momiber should be summoned before the committee for the consideration of hi* case. A by-law provided that the club should be open from 9 a.m. to 3 a.m. the next morning, and that cards could not be played on credit for more than £200 at a time. He did not mention this to discredit the club, "but because his case was that, amonght 'other things, the plaintiff was a man who Jiad lived a life in which he had betted a great deal, raced a great deal, and played cards a great ue'al. and whether they approved of that or not they were not entitled to gibbet a man so long as he lived that life fairly. That was the character of the club and the rules, and another rule was that if a member introduced an undesirable person, that member could be called to account by the committee. On the occasion vn October tho plaintiff, returning from Aewmarket, went to the Raleigh Club with » friend, and went in to speak to a member.

He remained talking £o this member and others for the best part of .-yj hour, and was seen there by the defendant, who asked Major Sellar, a member of the club, if he had introduced plaintiff. The Major eaid he had not, and then the defendant made the statements complained of. But the defendant had another and an ungenerous line — viz., that he would try and save his pocket by trying to satisfy the jury that the plaintiff was a man of general bad character, who ought not to be allowed to bring an action for slander at all. It was because of that line taken that ho wished to say a few words about the plaintiff's history, because apparently no expense or pains had been spared in raking up evidence, not only here, but in Australia, against the plaintiff. " Shortly, the plaintiff's history was this : He was born in the year 1860 in London, hie father and grandfather holding good positions. lie was educated at Cheltenham, and on leaving school went to South Africa, serving with distinction in one of the Kaffir wars. After that for several years plaintiff earned his living on the stage, both in England and India. In the year 1882, when 22 years of age, plaintiff went to Australia, where he earned his living ac a bookmaker, carrying on the business in the name of Robert Sutton. There, after a few weeks acquaintance, ho married a lady, was divorced, and that divorce- was made a subject of comment and introduced into the particular?. He would not go into that, however, but leave it for his learned friends if they thought it advisable. The only incident of any account that happened in Australia was that plaintiff, at a pigeon-shooting match in Melbourne, was foolish enough to say that cne of the shooters deliberately missed his bird. A rumpus took place, and plaintiff was taken before the police court, and had to pay the costs. In March, 1886, the plaintiff returned to England, and was elected a member of Boodle's Club, beingproposed by a great friend of plaintiff's father and seconded by a person of high position. He remained a member of that club until his subscription lapsed, upon his return to Australia.

*' There was a certain noble lord at Melbourne at this time, and he occupied a high social position, being aide-de-camp to the Governor. He owed Mr Sievier some money, and, as he did not pay, Mr Sievier informed him that unless he paid ho would post him at the Victoria Club, which was a racing club at Melbourne. The young gentleman wrote to Mr Sievi*,.- a letter in which he =aid l I hope to be able to pay yoii the £287 by Friday week. Meanwhile post me in the club, and be d d.' Mr Sie\ier determined to have the measure of this young gentleman, and he told him ho must apologise. The young gentleman did nofi apologise, and when Mr Siover met him in one of the rooms of the club he spoko to him about his insulting letter. Obtaining no satisfaction, Mr Sievier bundled him out of the room of the elttb. The case came- before the committee of the club, and Mr Sievier was expelled. Mr Siencr thought he would have a pub-lie vindication of the matter, and took out a summons against the noble lord, who also issued a summons against Mr Sieve r. The two summonses were heard before a largo bench, and by a majority of one the Bench convicted Mr Sievier. and he got 14- clays. On appeal that conviction was quashed, and the noble lord had to pay the costs of both hearings." . . .

Mr Sievier, when in the witness box, was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examina-tion, which dealt with v every period of his existence. The main line of defence* was in attempting to prove that the plaintiff (Mr Sievier) was on many occasions a heavy winner as the' result of several billiard matches and a good deal of card-playing, in which tho loser, it was alleged, was generally a greenhorn well primed with liquor. But Air Sievier w;s not always a winner, and at the Liverpool autumn meeting (when playing in the presence of <oma members of the Raleigh Club, which he presumptuously entered, and by .=o doing laid the foundation of the case) it was given in evidence that Sievier Jo^s £6000 at cards during tho meeting. The judge (Mr Just'cc Grantham) summed up very strongly against the plaintiff, and saic' : At the out set the characters of both plaintiff and defendant were dependonr upon the verdict. Were they going to allow plaintiff to go into the world whitewashed, and, as a man of honour who could say that he went again amongst his friends with the thought that the charges mado againet him were without foundation? If the jury did believe that, then it would be their duty to find a verdict for plaintiff, giving him damages. At the same time, there must be taken into consideration the character and conduct of the defendant, Sir James Duke. His conduct and character were also in their care, and if they thought he was not guilty, they must protect him. His lordship, continuing, said he was sorry that it had been taid on the part of tho plainlift' that defendant had been guilty of an attempt to protect his own pocket. Now, did one word fall from Sir James in tho witness box which indicated that he was actuated by any spirit of malice, or anything apart from what he considered to be hia duty? He might have been wrong in r.°gard to his duty, but in the course of a long examination and croos examination, his lordship thought he was justified in asking the jury to say whether or not a single syllable came from Sir James which justified Ihc statement. On the other hand, from the plaintiff's own showing, he himself was such an individual that tho jury might be asked whether there was a man amongst them who, belonging to a club, would not retire at once if Sievi&r was admitted. Sievier asked for damages — not vindictive damages, it mu4 be understood — such damages as would allow him to £o forth to the public whitewashed by a jury of his country. Why? In order to leproduce the terrible incidents such as had been detailed, like the "Drinking" Homo episode, and others, with impunity. Turnirsr to Sievier" s marriage, his lordship sternly related the details. Sievier took Lady ?>label Bruce away from a roan to whom ?h© was on the eve of being married. Had she no* been so taken away and become Sievier' s wife she might have been the wife of an honouiablc' man. and have led a life far different from that wliich she had now pxpsrienced. "You see," said hi* lord&lnp, "the character of the man." The next subject dealt with was the) one of the presentation of Sievier to the late Queen "Victoria. He traded in Australia under an assumed name as a bookmaker, and theryhud the audacity to come to England, and managed to be presented to her late Majesty. Everybody knew what the feeling of Queen Victoria was in stich matters. Commenting at some length uwon other subjects, lm lordship said ho would be only insulting tho jury if ho asked them to believe such a man as Sicker. The whole matter was now ripe for the decision of the juiy. Did they

' believe Sievier' s side or did they believe Sir James Duk&'s? He should be sorry that any words of his should place Major Sellar, who was in an honourable service, in a difficult position; but it was for the jury to say whether they believed his account of the Raleigh Club incident, which led to this trial, or Sir James Duke's. If the latter, then there would be a clean verdict for the defendant. If, on the other hand, they believed Major Sellar's version, they would ' find for plaintiff, and give such damages 1 as they might think he ought to have, i The jury brought in a verdict for the de- { fendant, Sir J. Duke, after being in retirc1 men I about 15 minutes.