The Baccarat Case edited by W. Teignmouth Shore

Lord Coleridge presiding at the Baccarat Case with his wife and other ladies of society seated beside him on the bench

The Baccarat Case edited by W. Teignmouth Shore (1932 - The Notable Trials Library) - In the fall of 1890 His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, was the banker and General Owen Williams was the croupier in the card game of baccarat on two evenings at, Tranby Croft, the English country home of Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Wilson. The stakes for the men, 5 - 30 pounds, were modest for the gentlemen. The ladies played for shillings. 

Sir William Gordon-Cumming, a baronet in his early 40’s, had had a distinguished career of 23 years in the Scots Guards Regiment of the British army. He was lieutenant-colonel in his regiment. His counsel described him as “not a man of scanty means”. Sir William did very well each evening though the 225 pounds he won was insignificant to him. (The stakes would have been high for most Britons. It is estimated the current value of the 225 pounds would exceed $20,000.)

While the party which had gathered for the Doncaster races was still at the Wilson home Lord Coventry and General Williams advised Sir William that he was accused of cheating at cards. Sir William stoutly denied cheating. He said he told them it was a “foul and abominable charge”.

Lord Coventry and General Williams subsequently brought to Sir William a document “his signing of which they told him was absolutely necessary in order to avoid a terrible social scandal”.

In the opening statement of the trial Sir William’s counsel, Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C. and Solicitor-General of England, quotes a précis prepared by Lord Coventry and General Williams about a week after the events. It stated:

….Sir William Gordon-Cumming systematically placed a larger stake on the table, after the card had been declared in his favour, then he had originally laid down, and when the cards were against him he frequently withdrew a portion of his stake, by these means defrauding the bank.

The précis continues later that:

…. as a condition of silence, Sir William Gordon-Cumming must be made to sign an undertaking never again to play cards for the rest of his life.

The précis acknowledges Sir William protested his innocence even to the Prince of Wales but:

... was told it was utterly useless to attempt a denial in the face of the distinct evidence of so many totally unprejudiced persons, whose interest it was that no scandal should have happened in the house.

And later, before he signed:

…. They clearly pointed out that his signature to this would be a distinct admission of guilt.

The document signed by Sir William and the other men stated:

In consideration of the promise made by the gntlemen whose names are subscribed to preserve silence with reference to an accusation which has been made with regard to my conduct at baccarat on the nights of Monday and Tuesday, the 8th and 9th of September, 1890 at Tranby Croft, I will on my part solemnly undertake never to play cards again as long as I live.

As inevitable there was no silence and Sir William’s reputation was besmirched across the land.

His claim for defamation was tried before the Chief Justice of England, Lord Coleridge, and a jury.

In his stirring opening Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C. and Solicitor General, who was counsel for Sir William, said he was there to “defend a soldier’s honour”.

Sir William testified he had never cheated.

On cross-examination Sir William acknowledged he sometimes held the leather counters (chips in the gambling language of today) in his hands after placing his stake but denied ever adding to or subtracting from his stake after the cards were dealt. In my next post I will discuss at length his cross-examination.

The Prince of Wales was called as a witness and said he had not seen any cheating. He indicated he was not paying close attention to the actions of the players.

General Williams also testified he had not observed any cheating. That he, a close friend for years of Sir William, believed Sir William had cheated was clear from his words and actions after that night. While belief is not evidence it was harmful to Sir William.

Young Mr. Arthur Stanley Wilson, the son of the owner of Tranby Croft, testified about seeing the cheating on both nights. He said he never raised the issue during the playing as there were ladies present.

Mr. Berkley Levett, a junior officer in Sir William’s regiment, directly stated he saw Sir William add counters by dropping them from his hand hovering over his bet after the cards were played. He quoted Mr. Wilson as saying “it is too hot”. He spoke of a subsequent meeting with Sir William after the matters became public in which he said he would say he was mistaken for the sake of the regiment.

Mr. Lycett Green was the leader of the accusers. Though he only witnessed the cheating on the second night he reacted most strongly by leaving the table and writing a note to his mother-in-law, Mrs. Arthur Wilson, that he had witnessed cheating. The note was delivered by the butler to her at the table while the game continued. He was eager to confront Sir William that night if Sir William denied the cheating. On cross he was emphatic that he never saw Sir William reduce his bet when he saw the cards were unfavourable.

Mrs. Lycett Green was definite that she saw cheating and did not waver on cross.

Mrs. Arthur Wilson was equally definite that she saw cheating. On cross she was certain that she witnessed cheating. She brushed aside questions on why she did not instantly stop the game when she saw cheating.

None of the accusers were shown by Sir William in the language of the day as “unfriendly” towards him.

The précis proved unreliable on its details. As an example, there was an absence of evidence on withdrawing stakes. The evidence was on adding stakes.

My next post will further discuss the evidence of Sir William and the lengthy arguments of counsel.