ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 294, 21 January 1910, Page 3

ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

WELL-KXUWX AUTHOR CHAKGED

A MISSING GIRL WITNESS. London, December 3. The trial o£ Mr. T. W. H. Crosland, the well-known author, for alleged crini inal libel against the Hon. H. !'• W. Mannerb'-Sutton, 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 the plea of justification. Mr. George Elliott, K.C., represented the prosecution, while Lord Alfred Douglas was also present. Mr. J. P. Valetta, who defended, asked for an adjournment, on the ground ot 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 19th July 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 upoa a threat of proceedings put forward by Maggie Dupont he (the prosecutor) had paid through Mr. Arthur Newton a sum of £'looo in order to hush the matter up. "The said Arthur Newton," the affidavit continued, "then and there admitted this to be the fact, stating that he had acted for the prosecutor, and on his behalf settled the matter by a money payment to the girl's father."

OVERTURES FOR SETTLEMENT. The affidavit went on to state that Mr. Clinton was instructed to act for defendant in place of Messrs. Arthur Newton and Co., and that he had an interview with the police inspector in charge of the case, and instructed him to find the whereabouts of Maggie Dupont. "After the adjournment on 15th October I was approached with a view to a settlement of the matters in dispute, and on 23rd October, at the desire of Mr. Arthur Newton, I called upon him. He stated that he was then in correspondence with the prosecutor, and 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 ni, conditions would the defendant offer any apology; moreover, he would require some compensation for what he had endured. On or about stli November J 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 wore discussed, and culminated in a suggestion of the payment of £IOO in compensation to the defendant, together witli £l5O agreed costs. Mr. Newton expressed the opinion that this was reasonable, and stated that he would so advise the. prosecutor. . - ■ "On 11th November I again saw Mr. Arthur Newton, who informed me that the prosecutor now declined to make anv monev payment. I stated that in these circumstances it would be necessary for me to obtain the attendance of Maggie Dupont, to which Mr. Newton replied to the effect that he did not think I should ever find her, and from his conversation I v:' ''-'■ stood that he was fully acquainted wii.!> l'er present whereabouts, but that he would render no assistance." Mr. Valetta next read an affidavit made by Detective Webb, of Bow-street Police Station, in which lie stated that on being requested to trace the whereabouts -of Maggie Dupont. he discovered in the course of a few days that she frequented the streets in the neighborhood of Leicester Square. On lath October Mr. Clinton told him that as he (Mr. Clinton) understood that no evidence would be offered by the prosecution, there was no necessity to maintain a strict watch on the girl, and he accordingly relaxed his observation. On 12th November Mr. Clinton told him that the prosecution was to proceed, and he received instructions to subpoena Dupont for the trial.

"OFF TO PHILADELPHIA." "I then found that she had left London on or about 17th or 18th October," stated the detective. "I also discovered that she left the country with a man named Marcella, and travelled with him to Philadelphia, where she now is." Finally, Mr, Valetta read an affidavit by Lord Alfred Douglas, in which lie stated that he saw the prosecutor by appointment at Norwich on 9th October, and that he told the prosecutor the police were endeavoring to find Dupont. "He replied," proceeded the affidavit, "that he had nothing to fear, as the girl was out of the country. . . In addition, I was fully aware of the circumstances in which Mr. Arthur Newton, acting for the prosecutor, paid .a sum of money to the father of Maggie Dupout." The Judge asked whether it would not be possible to have the girl's father at the Court. Mr. Valetta: He has gone, too, Ji understand. Put. of course, the proper witness would be the girl herself. The Judge suggested that Mr. Newton might, lie called, but counsel said he 1 " believed Mr. Newton pleaded professional privib'o-e. The Judae. having road the affidavits, asked if there was the slightest hope of the girl Dupont coming from America. Mr. Valetta: Yes. I believe so. There ils no reason to believe that she would not. But perhaps Mr. Elliott l-civ-more than I do about the matter. Mr. Elliott: So far as I know, there is' no chance of her ooming back. PROSECUTOR'S DENIALS. Mr. Elliott strongly opposed the application for an adjournment., and saiil that the made in (lie aH'idavils were strenuously denied by Mr. Manners-Sutton. He declared: "It is untrue that ! e\n 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 .see me at Norwich, that I should withdraw from the prosecution, but I definitely told him that I would only do so ou the plea of justification being withdrawn, the defendant apologising and paving mv costs. ]l emphaticalhdiltv nT'tlivH. '-o:ili'n?ed) flint I

have ''v"r in-tnifto'l tV snul A. Xowtnn . to act for p.'f > Uii? matter at all. Ny I to make u;:y offer of money to the I defendant, A3 to tfie 'whereabouts of '

the person wnom it is alleged the defendant desires to call as a witness, ;i it is intended to mgjrest that 1 have had any hand in removing her from mijurisdiction of the Court or indiirin. her to conceal her whereabouts, stn-h suggestions I declare to be totally untrue and without foundation. I neve» said 'I had nothing to fear, as the girl was out of the country.' In fact, I did not know then, nor do I know now, anything concerning her whereabouts. The Judge: I do not .see any denial that lie paid ..£IOOO to the father to hush up the claim in connection with the girl Dupont. Mr. Elliott: There is no denial. In the subsequent discussion as to the necessity for an adjournment, Mr. Elliott said that Mr. Manners-Sutton would he the last man in the world tr. wish that defendant should be in danger of any injustice being done to him. Mr. Croslaiid here made a somewhat dramatic intervention: "j.uey know where she is. If they tell us we can have the trial to-morrow," he declared. Finally it was decided to adjourn until February.—N.Z. Herald's London correspondent.