The 65th Regiment.

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 136, 27 April 1886, Page 2

The 65th Regiment.

We (Auckland Herald) have to hand a volume by Major G. A. Raikes, F.S.A., .containing a history and roll of officers of the first battalion of the York and Lancaster Regiment, formerly 65th, 2nd Yorkshire North and North Riding, 1756-1884. The vol* ume is dedicated to the officers past and present. The name -iof this famous regiment is familiar to every colonist in New Zealand. It was originally raised as the second battalion 12th Foot, August 21, 1756 ; formed into a separate tegi&ttnt^and numbered the 65th Boot, June 25, reoeived the title of v 2nd Yorkshire, North Riding" Regiment, August 3, 1782 ; and became the first battalion of the York aad Lancashire Regiment July 1, 1881. In recognition of the distinguished services of the regiment in India and Arabia a special badge was conferred on them, by George IV. in 1823— namely, the figure of the Royal Tiger, with the word " India" superscribed, and also the wordj" Arabia" beneath the figure. By general order, dated 4th June,---1870, the regiment was authorised to bear the words "New Zealand" on the colours to commemorate thoir services during the warm this colony; and by general order, dated January, 1884, they became entitled to add too words "Egypt, 1884," for their sorriest in the Soudan in tlie spring of that year. Major Raikes has compiled ft history which is of interest, not bnly to the present members of the regiment, but to Yorkshire men id general and forms a supplement to the county history, as well as a trustworthy reoord of the services performed in ono of the oldest militia corps in England. To old 65th men, who have settled il New Zealand, the volume will ba especially acceptable.

Referring to the case, the Law Journal writes as follows :-*_r Much misappreanem of the judgment in Crawford v. Crawfbri has arisen through forgettiag that tha law of evidence is direoted purely to results. So far as any result, either of damages or costs to Sir Charles Dilko i§ concerned, ho has been pronounced mno* cent of the charge brought against, bin* but so far as the result to Mrs Cratirferd is concerned, Sir Charles Dilke has been pronounced guilty. It is supposed tbat the law assumes an impossible itate of facts, but it does not, It finds as a fact the guilt »f the two persons So^far as the consequences to one of theui-. art coo* cerned, but not so far as the caniequenoes to the other are concerned. If the guilt of Sir Charles Dilke with Mrs CrMrfcpd is not involved in tho decree of divorce, a gross injustice has been done 1 tie Mrs Crawford, because it was not suggested that she was guilty with any one else. If there is any reasonable suspicion that Mrs Crawford was not guilty with-S£ Charles Dilke, the Queen's Procter, wit? at once intervene, as the decree rhas been obtained by plain collusion.