THE CRAWFORD-DILKE CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1546, 24 August 1886, Page 3

THE CRAWFORD-DILKE CASE.

The following details of the CrawfordDilke case ore taken from English telegrams in American papers to hand by the s.s. Alameda:— : Th« re-hearing in the divorce case of Crawford against Crawford and Dilke, opened by the Queen's Proctor, began on July 16th. The Court was crammed with notables,, including many well-known Sir Charles Dilke, Mrs Crawford, arid her sister, were present. Sir Charles Dilke being sworn, denied totally all the-allegations concerning him made by Mrs Crawford, He declared her confession an act of deliberate conßpirucy due to his having advised Mrs Crawford through a frieud to abandon an intrigue she then had with Captain Forster. Captain Forster challenged witness, bat h 6 declined the challenge as ridiculous. Sir Charles was visibly affected while testifying, and in walking to the witness box he almost staggered, but soon recovered, and his replies to questions were made with clearness and precision. He replied to the question, "Did you make lore to Virginia Ciawford f"'witb "JTo, certainly not." Mrs Crawford and Sir Charles frequently exchanged glances. The former smiled in an amused rammer when Sir Charles denied that a liaison existed between them. One of lit Matthews' questions, wLich caused a flutter, was "Were yon ever a lover of Virginia's mother ?" Too reply came, " I have been asked previously a p©mewhat similar question, and I must decline to answer." This response created a sensation. During his evidence Sir Charles declared he had never kissed Virginia Crawford, op mad« love or paid any court to her, and had never been improperly or unduly familiar with her ; in fact he was only on terms of ordinary acquaintanceship with her. " My reasons for appealing to the Queen's Proctor," he continued, "arose from the comments of newspupere." In Court on the 20th Sir C. Dilke was cheerful—almost frisky—Mr D. Crawford was Bullen and heavy-eyed, Mrs Crawford was cool nnd collected, breaking the tedium of technical evidence by a series of dull yawns and twirlinga of her handkerchief ; at the same time she often consulted a miniature diary, and occasionally whispered to Mr Lewis, her solicitor, and chatted smilingly with her sisters. The evidence of the servants tended to ehow that Sir C. Dilke ordered the housemaids to be on the staircase as seldom as possible, because he disliked to see them. Shant, the coachman, said he frequently drove Sir C. Dilke to the house in Counter' street, the \isits usually lasting a quarter of an hour. Once he saw Sir C. Dilke and a lady through trip windqw, They were only sitting and talking. Three secretaries testified that they never saw lady visitors at Sir C. Dilke's house. One said he had to refresh his memory as to date by reference to Hansard. Mr .justice Hannen interrupted, and said Hansard was not a book recognised by the Court. Madame Disolovy, a native of Neucbatel, was a difficult witness. She did not remember whether she was married in 1873 or 1877. She had kept, a cigar store in Mont Place, but had forgotten whether it was in 187J3 or that she had kept »*• s ne h «d le * loggings, but was npt able to give the names of anybody who had stayed there over night. Sir Charles Dilke, she said, cabled only once a year. She never saw yirginia Crawford. Sjic had engaged Faony I as a servant. Witness said she was formerly in Sir Charles Dilke's service, and was now pensioned. Alis Robertson deposed that Captain Forster had called at her hpuse, and told f irgim'a Crawford he was ordered to Egypt, and Mrs Crawford wept. Witness also said Mrs Crawford had told her that she (Mrs Crawford) had I on two occasions slept in Sir Chas. Dilke's house. Witness besought Mrs Crawford to rupture her relations with Sir 0. Dilke. Some of this evidence was decidedly the most oircinystantial yet given. Mrs draw ford testified that she confessed that she disliked her husband because he was too old, that Bhe loved Forster because he was handsome and pleasing, and that she was intimate with

Sir C. 'Hike for the purpose of obtaining a d vni ce from her hated husband. She spared Capt. Forster as far as possible, because she knew he was about to marry. Under strict cross-examination, she confessed she had been intimate only with Sir Charles Dilke and Captain Forster, exculpating N-o other society men. A remarkable feature waa_ when Mrs Crawford was asked a question, for instance, in regard to the French vices, etc., she answered with the utmost calmness, "Yes, yes," and even smiled, showing that she was naturally an abandoned woman, who rather gloried in her shame. Mrs Crawfor-d spoke in soft, pleasing tones, damaging Sir C. Dilke without exculpating herself. The evidence given to-day produced a deep impression. Its directness • and clearness and circumstantial minuteness convinced all of its truth. Sir C. Dilke's refusal to deny a liaison with Mrs Crawford's mother i* attributed to the open nature of the scandal rendering denial impossible. The conduct of Mrs Crawford and her two sisters in Court was marked with unseemly levity, all laughing and talkie g together. Mrs Crawford resumed her testimony on the 21st. The asserted she believed it" was Mrs Rodgerson who wrote the anonymous letters, accusing witness of infidelity with Captain Forster, and netobject was to screen Sir Charles Dilke. Mrs Ashton Dilke, sister of Mrs Crawford and sister-in-law of Sir Charles, testified that he (Sir Charles), after Mrs Crawford had made her confession, suggested a quiet separation between her and her husband, and offered to contribute to Mrs Crawford's income. While she was under examination, Captain Forster entered the Courtroom, and was seen by her, when she became less confident in her manner, and her replies were often made in a hesitating way and after long pauses. On the 22nd Captain Forster took the stand as a witness. He admitted"be had been guilty (of improprieties with Mrs Crawford. He' once quarrelled with Sir Charles, and called him a liar, scoundrel, and coward, because he had secretly attempted to thrash Sir Charles, but desisted at Mrs Rogersou's entreaty. Mrs Rogerson was here recalled. She denied the statements just made by Captain Forster. Mr Matthews then addressed the jury on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Crawford, whom his lawyer described as the " only one who merged clear from amidst this plentiful throwing of the foulest mud." The learned counsel ridiculed Sir Charles Dilke's reason for remaining silent during the progress of the trial. Mr Matthews did not mince matters. He described things in true vernacular, with such power and intensity, that Sir Charles became livid with rage, and twice jumped to.s|s feet, and essayed to speak, but the J&dgl? prevented him from doing so. Mr MStthews, continuing, referred wifh intense scorn to the "Frenchified Sloan street orgies,"and said—"No man who was not bestialißed as to be lost to all shame would act as Sir Charles Dilke had done in them. Where," said the lawyer, "i» Fanny, accused of sharing in the orgieef While this young married woman, who was betrayed and degraded into them, is being held up to infamy before the whole English-speaking world, Fanny has vanished, She darad not appear before the jury." Commenting upon apparent present lack of seusibility manifested by Mrs Crawford, Mr Matthews said, "Doubtlesß the lait spark of shame and respect in ; Mrs Crawford expired after the visits she made to Sir O, Dilfce's houße," Sir Walter Philllmore, on behalf of the Qjeen's Proctor, followed Mr Matthews. Sir Walter contended that unless Mr Donald Crawford proved that his wife committed infidelity with Sir Charles he was not entitled to a decree of decree of divorce f torn hepin the present action. Mr Crawford might obtain a divorr-e, but would have to obtain it by bringing another action, in which Captain Foreter was the co-respondent. Not a single witness had sworn to either seeing Mrs Crawford go to or leave Sir Charles' house. It was always crowded with officials and friends. Every gentlemanly feeling had restrained Sir Charles from going upon the stand and testifying during the previous trial. There was a dark Btain upon his life, and he was unwilling to submit himself to the process of examination which would direot towards makiog an exposi concerning Mrs Eustace Smith, Mrs Crawford's mother. The absence of Fanny, Sir Walter argued, could be similarly accounted for. She, doubtless, had a dark stain, upon her life, and it was enough to keep her out of the witness-box. Concerning Mrs Crawford, Sir Walter's statements showed she had been badly reared, and that she was a most bold, abandoned woman. After Captain Forster had given his evidence, d,ir Charles said to him, •< We will meet next week in Paris." " Whenever you please," Forster replied calmly. The case went to the jury on the 23rd. Mr Justice Hanneu's summing up was pronounced by the lawyers a jn,°del of clearness and pompaptness and impartiality from beginning to end. The formal verdict of the jury contains no mention of Sir Charles Dilke bynames It simoly declares that no material facts were suppressed at the previous trial, at which the decree of djvorpe was obtained justly, Sir Charles Dilke left town on Saturday, presumably for the Continent. On the same day, anticipating his removal by the Queen from her Privy Council he resigned, and no longer, even technically, is a Right Honorable, Many clergymen referred to. his fall in their sermops on Sunday. Previous to his departing he issued the following address to the Chelsea electors *,—He says, *<As far as my public life goes, I have no option but to accept the verdict. While protesting once more against its justice, I can only assure you, as I have already often solemnly assured you and with equal solemnity sworn in Hourt, that ] am innocent of the charge brought against me. and respectfully and gratefully bid you farewell,—l am, yours faithfully, O.Diikk,"