THE CRAWFORD DILKE DIVORCE CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1540, 3 August 1886, Page 3

THE CRAWFORD DILKE DIVORCE CASE.

Lohdon July SI. In the Dilko oais yesterday the respondent, Mis Crawford, was in the witness box. She • wore that the admissions she had made to her husband (petitioner) as to her having visited Sir Charles Dilke at his o*rn house for improper purposes were quite true, and in support of the statement gave a minute description of Sir Charles Dilke'* bedroom. Respondent admitted that she was aware Sir Charles Dilke had previously been improperly intimate with her mother.

July 22. The hearing of evidence in the divoroe case Crawford and Dilke was continued to-day. Mrs Crawford swore that Sir O. Dilke had ♦dmittedthat the woman "Fanny," Mrs Rogerson, and Mrs Smith were all former mistresses of bis own. Aston Dilke, brother of co-rfßpondent, deposed that Sir O. Dilke bad offered to pay respondent an annuity provided she retracted the inculpatory statements she had made regarding him. Some ledgers at the house where respondent had lived gave evidence tending to show that she had been improperly intimate with co-re* spond»nt. 1 July 25.

The decree of divoroo in the case Crawford v. Dilke has been confirmed. Sir Charles Dilke has published a farewell address to hit late constituents, in which he states that he is sensible of the faofc that his politiosl career has for ever closed, but still protests his innooence of the charges laid against him. The Times comtmnt'ng on the ease in a leading artiole refieofcs severely on the eo-res-pondent j alludes to the effrontery of Sir Charles Dilke during the time that the case was pending, and says it is certain that his name will be removed from the list of Privy Councillors, for he has been convicted of wholesale perjury and of suborning witnesses. It it neoesiary, the Times further declares, that the Crown should oarefully consider whether Sir Charles Dilke should not be prosecuted, and it expresses the belief that the exposure of hit conduot has been so complete that he will take the earliest convenient opportunity of quitting the country. The Pall Mall Gaiette alluding to the ense says there is a likelihood that the idea at present entertained of Sir Charles Dilke's guilt will be diminished, but it insists that it is essential that the woman "Fanny," who would have been the best material witness but who disappeared mysteriously, should be found, and that SirOharlM Dilke should either prosecute the respondent, Mrs Crawford, for slander or be himself iadioted for perjury. The Press ii unanmious in condemning Sir Charles Dilko'a connection with the case.

During the hearing, counsellor petitioner addressed the Court. He delivered a most powerful indictment, in which he desoribed the eonduot of Sir Charles Dilke in loathing terms. The jury showed they were greatlj impressed, and the audience more than onoe applauded. Sir Charles Dilke, smarting under the comments of counsel, twice interposed in order to give his denial, but was promptly snubbed by the Judge. Sir James Hannen, the Queen'i Proctor, at whoee instance the case had been reopened, argued that tbe sole issue before the Court; was the question of the adultery of Sir Charles Dilke with Mrs Crawford. In summing up, the Judge said the silence of Sir Charles Dilke in the first instance, under the grave charges made against his character, suggested guilt. He asked the jury whether they, as men, would remain silent, even if counsel advised their doing so, when there was at issue a question of falsehood bo vitally affect ing their character, His Honor said it was most remarkable that Mrs Crawford should have been able to narrate so accurately all the circumstances,

The jury returned a verdict to the effect that Sir O. Dilke bad been guilty of adultery. The petitioner (Mr Crawford), was warmly cheered as he drove away. The offioials are now considering whether Sir 0. Dilke shall not be prosecuted for perjury. It is stated that Sir Charles and Captain Foster will leave for Paris, and there fijht a duel.