THE DILKE CASE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1322, 23 August 1886, Page 2

THE DILKE CASE

Auckland, August 22, The following details of the CrawfordDilke ease are taken from English telegrams in American papers to hand by the s.b. Almeda The rehearing In the dlvorcs casp of Crawford against Crawford and opened by the Queen's Proctor, began on July 16tn. The Coart was crammed with no’ables, including many well-known' ladies. Sir Charles Dilke, Mrs Crawford and her sister were present. Counsel for the Queen's Proctor in

opening the case asserted that the servant* me uionod by Mrs Crawford in her confessions as being present, or witnessing her meeting with Sir Charles Dilke at bis house or elsewhere did not confirm Mu

Crawford's statements In any particular, Sarah, the maid who dressed her in Sit Charles’ apartment after his departure from there, denied the atory altogether. The French woman Fanny, who, Mrs Crawford confessed, brought her into intimate relations with Sir Charles Dilksy her counsel admitted had disappeared, bat Sit Charles Dilke himself would testify and show ha was not with Mas Ocewiotdjtoft dates she alleged ha |vn fq

| m jany with her. Sir Oh: rles’ coach mao would show ha neve-,stayed long al Mrs C.awford’s house waiting for hh master to terminate his visits to Mrs Crawford. The coachman would farther testify he could have seen if anything wrong had been done in the room where Mrs Ciawford had received Sir Charles in his own boose, as the coachman from his box could easily see over the whole area of the room Sir Charles Dilke being sworn, denied totally all the allegations concerning him made by Mrs Crawford. He declared her confession an act of diliborata con - spiracy due to his having advised Mrs Crawford through a friend to abandon an

Intrigue she then had with Captain Forster. Captain Forster challenged witness, but he 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 ih° questions were made with clearness and precision. He replied to the question, “Did you make love to Virginia Crawford?” with “No, certainly not” Mrs CrEWf'ord and Sir Charles frequently exchanged glances. The former muled in an amused manner when Sir Charles donled that a liaison existed between them. A despatch from London, dated July

17th, says Mrs Crawford rec ntly made s statement to the Queen’s Proctor, the exact naiare of which is not known, but It is expected she will be called upon to substantiate it, and some new facts, perhaps of a startling nature, may be elicited. , The correspondent is of opinion that Sir Charles makes a bad witness, failing to answer the questions asked till absolutely forced, and showing a general disposition

to debate and quibble. One of Mi Matthew’s questions, which caused a flutter, was “ Were you ever a lover t i Virginia’s mother ? ’ The reply came, * 1 bare been asked pr viously a somewhat peculiar question, and I must decline to answer.” This response created a sensation. During his evidence Sir Charles declared be had never biased V rginia Crawford, or made love or paid any coarc to her, end bad never been improperly or unduly familiar with her ; in Get he waa only on terma of ordinary acquaintanceship with her. “My reasons for appealing to the Queen’s Proctor,” he continned,” arose from the comments of the newspapers.” Sensation was caused in Cou r t on the 19.hby an *xpi)t in writing testifying that letters admittedly written by Mrs Crawford, and signed “Virginia,” were found to be on comparison with the anonymous letters warning Mr Ciawford •gainst “ the member for Chelsea ” to be similar in bandwriting

la Court on the 20;h Sir C. Di’ke was cheerful—almost frisky—Mr L). Crawford was sullen and heavy-eyed, Mrs Crawford was cool and collected, breaking the tedium of tiebnical evidence by a leries of dull yawns and twirling* of her hand kerchief ; at the same time consulted a miniature diiry, and rc.asionally whispered to Mr Lewis, her solicitor, and chattered timllingly with her sisters. The evidence of the scrvan'a tended to show that Sir C. Dilae ordered the housemaids to be on the staircase as seldom as possible, because he disliked to see them. Shant. the coachman said he frequei t'y drove Sir 0. Dilke to the house in Counter street, and the visits usual las ed a quarter of an hour. Once he saw Sir C. Dilke and a lady through the window They were sitting and talking. Three secretaries testified that they never saw lady visitors at Sir C. Dike’s houses. Madame Diaolovy, a native of Nenchatol, was a difficult wilne a. She did not ro member whether she was married In 1873 or 1877. She had Kept a cigar store in Uontapebx place, hut h ■ forgotten whether it was in 1873 or 1871 that she bad kept it. She had let lodgings, but was not able to give the names of any tody who had ever stayed there overnight. Sir Charles Dilke, she said, called only once a year, She never saw Virginia Crawford. She bad engaged Fanny as a servant. Witre:s said arenas former'y in Sir Charles Dilke’s service, pud waa now pensioned. Mrs Robertson depoiei that Captain Forster had called at her house, and told Virginia Crawford be was ordered to Egypt, and Mrs Crawford wept. Witness also said M's Crawford had told her that she (Mrs Crawford) had on two occasions slept ia Sir Charles Dilke’a house. Witness besought Mrs Crawford to rupture her relations with SirC. Dilke. Some of the evidence was decidedly the most circumstantial yet given!

Mrs Cr.whrd testified that she cmf eared that she disliked her husband because he was too old, that she loved Forster because be was handsome and pleasing, and that she was intimate with Sir Q. Dilke for the purpose of obtaining divorce trom 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 C. Dilke and Oapt, Forster, exculpating two other society men. A remarkable feature was when Mrs Crawford was asked a question, for instance, In regard to French vices, etc., she answered wbh the utmost calmness. “ Tea, yes,” and even smiled, showing that she was naturally an abandoned woman, who rather gloried in her shame. Mrs Crawford spoke in soft, pleasing tones damagng Sir C. Dilke 'without exculpating Ujarsolf. The evidence given tc-day produced a deep impression. Its directness and clearest and circumstantial minuteness convinced all of its truth. Sir C. Dilke’s refusal to deny a liaison with Mrs Otaivford’a mother is attributed to the open nature of the scandal rendering denial impossible. The conduct of Mrs Crawford and her two sisters In 'Coart wax marked with unseemly* levity, laughing and tilklag together." Mrs Crawford resumed her tes'imony on the 21st. She asserted she believed it was Mrs Rogerson who wrote the anonymous letters, accusing witness of infidelity with Captain Forster, aid her object was to screen Sir Charles Dilke. Mrs Ashton Dilke, sister of Mrs Crawfotd and state -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 Oraw’ord’s income. While she was under cross-examination, Captain Forster entered the Court room, and was soon by her, when she became le a confident in her manner, and her replies were often made In a stammering way, and after long pauses. On the 220 d Captain Forster took the stand as a witness. Headnrttelhe had been guilty of criminal liberty with Mrs Crawford. Ho once quarrelled with Sir Charles, and cilled him a liar, rcoundrel, and coward, because he had secretly attempted to sever the relations between Mrs Crawford and witness. He also attempted* to thrash Sir Cha'les, but desisted at Mrs Rogerson’a entreaty. Mrs Rogerson was here recalled. She denied the statements just made by Captain Forster.

Mr Matthews then addressed the j iry on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Cr .wford, whom his lawyer described as the “cniy one who'Tnergtd clear from amidst this plentiful throwing of the foulest mud.” The harned counsel ridiculed Sir Charles Pilke’s reason for remaining si’ent during the Pfogress of the trial, Mr Matthews did not mince matters. He described things in true vernacular, with such power and intensity, that Sir Charles dike became liv d with rage, and twice jnmped to his feet, and essayed to speak, but the Judge prevented him from doing so. Mr Matthews, continuing, referred with Intense scorn to the “Frenchified Sloan street orgies,” and said—“ No jnan

■ who was not so beatlaliaed as to be lost to t all shame would ect as Sir Charles Dllfre 1 had done In them. Where,” said the 1 lawyer, “is Fanny, accused of sharing . orgies, while this young married woman, who was betrayed and degraded into tht m, is being held up to Infamy before the whole English-speaking world, Fanny has vanished. She dared not appear before the jury ” Commenting upon the aparent present lack of sensibility manifested by Mrs Crawford, Mr Matthews aid, “ Doubtless the last spark of shame and reaped In Mrs Crawford expired after the visits she made to Sir Charles Dilko’s house.” Sir Walter p hilllmore, on behalf of (lie Queen’s Proctor, followed Mr Matthews, tnr Walter contended that unless Mr Donald Crawford proved that his w.fs committed infidelity with Sir Charles he was not entitled t > a decree of divorce f. om her In the present action. Mr

Crawford might obtain a divorce, bul would have to obtain it by bringing another action, in which Captain Forstei was the co-respondent. Not a single witness had sworn to either ageing Mrs Crawford go into or leave Dilkes’house, however, it wis always crowded with officials and friends. Every gentlemanly feeiing had res'rained Sir Charha from gii ig u; o 1 the stand and testifying durinir the previous tria*. There was a dark stain upon his life, and he whs unwilling to tubmit hini‘6f to the process of examination, which would direct towards making an expose concerning Mrs Eustace

Smith, Mrs Crawford’s mother The absence of Tary, Sir VValur argued, could bo similarly accounted for. She, doubtless, had a dark stain upon her life, and it was enough t<> 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 t aptain Forster had given hia evidence, Sir Cl arles said to him, “ We will m?et next week in Paris." “ Whenever you please,” Forster replied ra'mly. The c»se went to the jury on the 23rd, Mr Justice Hannon's summing up was pronounced by the lawyers a mode) of clearness and compactness and impartiality from beginning to end. The charge was decidedly against Sir Charles Dilke. The Judge alluded to the absence from the testimony of confirmation of the essential portion of Sir 0 Dilke’s story as certainly to be remarked, while Mrs Crawford was able to describe accurately the bedroom in Sir Charles' house, although he had sworn he had never taken her into the house. Besides this the evidence given by thosj who had teeTfied to the respondent's visit to the house in Warren street,

was unshaken If the jury believed these wtnesses. the Judge said the whole value of Sir Chas, Dilke’a testimony was destroyed. In reference to the long interval which elapsed between the first and second acts of adultery, Mr Justice Hannon thought Mrs Crawford’s explanation sufficient whenjshe said Sir Chtr’es was not well during this period Mr Crawford stayed throughout the Judge’s charge, with his elbows resting on the table and his face buried in his hands Sir Charles sat all the time, his eyes fixed on the Judge’s face, occasional nodding in agreement to a judicial remark. A'ter the verdict was pronounc d Sir Charles looked the picture of misery. Capt Foster sat near him evidently gloating over his rival’s dt j ction. It was observed that Capt, Foster appeared t) be watching for the door Sir Charles would|aalect for his exit and it was thought the Captain meant t) follow the Baronet and assault him. The formal verdict of the jury contains no mention of Sfr Charles Dilke by name. It simply declares (hat no material facts were suppreated st the previout trial, at which the decree of divorce waa obtained justly. There were no scenes attending the declaring of the result of the trial, although people outside the Con trocra received the announc ment with cheering. Sir Charles Dilke vanisbol Immediately after the verdict was returned. Mr Donald Crawford, plaintiff when he left the building waa cheered by the people In the streets. Sir Charles Dilke left town on Saturday, presumably for the Continent. On thejsamo day, anticipating his removal by the Queen from her Privy Council he resigned, and no longer, even technically, is a Bight Honorable Many clergymen referred fcu his fall lu their sermons ,on Sunday. Sir Ch tries Dilke has ordered the sale of his house at Chelsea. He refused the so'icitations of his friends to remain in England t> face the trouble, and intends to take up his permanent residence in the south of France. Previous to his departing he issued the following address to the Chelsea electors : —He says, “A s far as my public life goes, I have no oi tlon but to accept the verdict. While protesting once more against its justice, 1 can only assure you, as I have already often solemnly assured you and with equal solemnity sworn In Court, that I am innocent of the charge brought against me. and respectfully and gratefully bid you farewell.—l am, yours faithfully, 0. Dilke.”