'The case was complete without the evidence of either of the
original accusers, and the few friends of Lord de Ros who tried
to bear him up against the resulting obloquy were obliged to go
with the stream. When Lord Alvanley was asked whether he meant
to leave his card, he replied, "No, he will stick it in his
chimney-piece and count it among his honours.' "
Having read through the long case as reported in the Times, I
must declare that I do not find that the evidence against Lord de
Ros was, after all, so 'overwhelming' as the reviewer declares;
indeed, the 'leader' in the Times on the trial emphatically
raises a doubt on the subject. Among other passages in it there
is the following:--
'In the process of the trial it appeared that the most material
part of the evidence against Lord de Ros, that called sauter la
coupe,--which, for the sake of our English readers we shall
translate into CHANGING THE TURN-UP CARD,--the times and places
at which it was said to have been done could not be specified.
Some of the witnesses had seen the trick done 50 or 100 times by
Lord de Ros, but could neither say on what day, in what week,
month, or even year, they had so seen it done. People were
excessively struck at this deviation from the extreme punctuality
required in criminal cases by the British courts of law.'