King Edward entered the witness-box and was sworn in the ordinary way on the second day. Sir Edward Clarke addressed him as “Sir” and “Your Royal Highness,” and Sir Charles Russell did the same. His Majesty gave his evidence with much frankness, but it was largely of a formal character. He did, however, say that at the time when, as banker, he questioned Sir William Gordon-Cumming on the largeness of his winnings, he did not think he had been cheating; but he added, in cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell, that in advising Sir William Gordon-Cumming to sign the document, he considered he had been acting most leniently. As the King was leaving the witness-box an amusing incident occurred. A juryman rose from the back of the jury-box, and with _naïf_ frankness put two important questions--whether the King had ever seen Sir William Gordon-Cumming cheating, and whether he believed him to be guilty. In reply to the first question the King answered that the banker would not be in a position to see foul play, and that among friends it would not be expected; and to the second he replied that, Sir William’s accusers being so numerous, he could not but believe them. Having elicited these very important facts, the little juryman sat down, and the King left the box with a smile and a bow. The King’s evidence was followed by that of General Owen Williams, who, with Lord Coventry, drew up the document signed by the plaintiff. General Williams made two important statements--that he believed Sir William guilty, and that the King had objected to his placing his hands on the table in such a way that the counters could not properly be seen. In the course of the evidence it came out that the stakes played for on the two evenings were not large, but that Sir William won in all £225, which was paid him by cheque and which he retained. The trial lasted seven days, and on 9th June the jury, after ten minutes’ deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendants. The most extraordinary interest was taken in the case, both in this country and on the Continent and in America, no doubt chiefly owing to the Heir-Apparent’s connection with it. A Prince of Wales has rarely been called as a witness in a case, although, of course, in the theory of English law, all men are equal, and the privileges, if any, which would attach to him would not attach to him in his capacity as Prince of Wales or Heir-Apparent to the Throne, but simply in his capacity as a peer of the United Kingdom. It was pointed out by many that the conduct attributed to Sir William Gordon-Cumming was obviously not that of an officer and a gentleman, and in the House of Commons a week after the trial the Secretary of State for War expressed the regret of the King that he had not required Sir William to submit his case to the Commander-in-Chief.