WELL-KNOWN AUTHOR CHARGED

Otago Witness, Issue 2914, 19 January 1910, Page 57

WELL-KNOWN AUTHOR CHARGED

A MISSING GIRL WITNESS. STRANGE AFFIDAVITS READ. (Fbom Oue Own Coebespondent.) LONDON, December 3. « The trial of Mr, T. W. H. Crosland, the well-known author, for alleged criminal libel against the Hon. H. F. W. MannersSutton, son and heir of Viscount Canterbury, was again adjourned at the Old Bailey on Monday, but the proceedings were full of interest. Mr Crosland pleaded “ Not guilty,” and entered a plea of justification. Mr George Elliott, K.C., represented the prosecution, while Lord Alfred Douglas was also present. Mr J. P. Valetta. who defended, askect for an adjournment on the ground of the absence of a material witness, a woman named Maggie Dupont. He supported his application by reading three affidavits which caused some sensation. The first was by Mr C. W. F. Clinton, defendant s solicitor. In this Mr Clinton declared that on or about July 19 he, together with Mr Crosland and Lord Alfred Bruce Douglas, attended at the offices of Messrs Arthur Newton and Co. The filing of a plea of justification was discussed at considerable- length, and it was then stated in his (Mr Clinton’s) presence, both by the defendant and Lord A. B. Douglas, that the prosecutor had admitted and boasted to both that he had procured from a school a girl named Maggie Dupont for immoral purposes, and that subsequently upon . a threat ,of proceedings put forward by Maggie Dupont, he (the prosecutor) had paid through Mr Arhtu-r Newton a sum of £IOOO in order to hush the matter up. “ The said, Arthur Newton,” the affidavit continued,. then and there admitted 1 this to be the’ fact, stating that he had acted lor the . prosecutor, and on his behalf settled the- mat-tor, by a money payment to the girl’s father.” The affidavit -then went on to state that Mr Clinton was instructed to act for the defendant - -in place of Messrs Arthur Newton and Co., and that he had an interview with the police inspector in charge of the ease,- and instructed him to find the whereabouts- of Maggie Dupont. ’ After the adjournment, on' October 15, I was approached with a view to a settlement of the matters.,.-in, dispute, and on October 23, at the desire of Mr Arthur Newton, I called upon him. He -stated that he was then in correspondence with the prosecutor, and he was .willing to assist in bringing - about a settlement. Terms were suggested, but I declined to go into the matter! I, however, informed him that under no conditions would the defendant offer any apology; moreover, he would require some compensation for what he had endured. On or about November 5 1. saw Mr; Arthur Newton, when he stated that .he- thought the prosecutor would make a payment .to compensate the defendant, and also pay his costs of the proceedings. Terms were discussed, and .culminated- in a suggestion of the payment of £IOO in compensation to the defendant, together with £l5O agreed costs., Mr Newton expressed the opinion that this was reasonable, and stated that he would advise the prosecutor. On November 11 I again i.aw Mr Arthur Newton, who informed me

that the prosecutor now declined to male© ; :iv money payment-. I stated that in 1 :csc circumstances it would be necessary for meter obtain the attendance of Maggie > iupont, to which Mr Newton replied to •sue efji.ct that be did not think 1 should

• ver liud her, and . from his conversation understood that he was fully acquainted with her- present whereabouts, but that ho would .render no. assistance.”

Mr Vajotta,, next read an affidavit made by Detective Webb, of Bow Street Police Station,, in which he stated that on being requested to trace the whereabouts of Maggie Dupont, he discovered in the course of a fevfr days that she frequented the streets -in the neighbourhood of Leicester square.- On October 15 Mr Clinton told him that as he (Mr Clinton) understood that no evidenea -vould be offered by the prosecution, there was no necessity to maintain a strict watch on the girl, a.nd he accordingly relaxed his observation. On November ”12 Mr Clinton told him that the prosecution was to proceed, and ho received instructions to subpoena Dupont for the trial.

“ I then found that she had left London on or about October 17 or IS,” stated the detective. “ I also discovered that she was last seen in the company of a man named Marcella, and was at the time carrying a small travelling basket. I have since been informed that she left the country with Marcella, and travelled with him to Philadelphia, where she now is.” Finally, Mr Valetta read an affidavit by Lord Alfred Douglas, in which he stated that he saw the prosecutor by apointment at Norwich on October 9, and that he told the prosecutor that the police were endeavouring to find Dupont. “ He replied,’ - proceeded the affidavit, “ that ho had nothing to fear as the girl was out of the country. . . In addition, I was fully aware of ihe circumstances in which Mr Arthur Newton, acting for the prosecutor, p aid a sum of money to the father of Maggie Dupont.” The judge asked whether it would not be possible to have the girl’s father at the

court. Mr Vnlctta: He has gone, too, I understand. But, of course, the proper witness would be the girl herself. The Judge suggested that Mr Newton might be. called, but counsel said ho believed Mr Newton pleaded professional privilege. _ , The Judce, having read the affidavits, asked if there was the slightest 'hope of the girl Dupont coming from America. Mr Valetta: Yes, I believe so. There is no reason to believe that she would not. But perhaps Mr Elliott knows more than I do about the matter. Mr Elliott: So far as I know, there is tot the slightest chance of her coming back. Mr Valotta: That is most instructive.

Mr Elliott: I am Judging simply from my friends’ affidavits. • , Mr Valetta: Her address in Philadelphia has been ascertained, and she has been written to. The Judge: Tt is not merely suggested that she is not here, but that she has been spirited away. Mr Valetta: That is so. It is no use burking the question. We say that she has been spirited away by the prosecutor. Mr Elliott strongly opposed the application for an adjournment, and said that the statements made in the affidavits were strenuously denied' by Mr MamiersSutton. Counsel handed in the affidavit filed by Mr Manners-Sutton. He declared “It is untrue that I ever admitted or boasted with regard to Maggie Dupont. I was informed and believe that the Maggie Dupont referred to is a woman of the town. ... It was suggested to me by Lord Alfred Douglas, who came to sec me at Norwich, that I should withdraw from the prosecution, but I definitely told him that I would only do so on the plea of justification being withdrawn, the defendant apologising and paying my costs. I emphatically deny that 1 have ever instructed the said A. Newton to act for me in this matter at all, or to sake any offer of money to the clefandant. As to the whereabouts of the'' person whom it is alleged the defendant desires to call as a witness, if it is intended to suggest that I have had any hand in removing her from the jurisdiction of the court or inducing her to conceal her whereabouts, such suggestions I declare to be totally untrue and without foundation I never said that I had nothing to fear, as the girl was out of the country. It fact, I did not know then, nor do I know now, anything concerning her whereabouts.” The Judge; I do not eee any denial that he paid £IOOO to the father to hush up the claim in connection with the girl Dupont, , . , T , Mr Elliott: There is no denial. Ido not suppose there will be any denial. In the subsequent discussion as to the necessity for an adjournment, Mr Elliott said that Mr Manners-Sutton 1 would be 'the last man in the world to wish that defendant should bo in danger of any injustice being done to him. Mr Croslancl here made a somewhat dramatic intervention: “They know where she is. If they tell us we can have toe trial to-morrow,” he declared. . Finally it was decided to adjourn until February. Mr Crosland then left the dock and rejoined his friends, being admit led to the same bail as before.