THE CRAWFORD – DILKE DIVORCE CASE. UNKNOWN BY "STAR" LONDON CORRESPONDENT.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 170, 18 September 1886, Page 2

THE CRAWFORD - DILKE DIVOR CE CASE. UNKNOWN BY " STAR " LONDON CORRESPONDENT.

London, July 23rd. The hearing of the case occupied a week, and the reports in the Daily Neiqs covered upwards of eighty columns. I have condensed as far as is possible. --What may be termed the re-hearing of the painful and notorious " Dilkc Case " was commenced on Friday last, before Sir James Hannari ani ' a special jury, and has boon continued during the past week, all England taking the* deepest and most anxious interest in its voluminous details. Sir James Hannen fully determined that tho disgraceful scenes which signalised the Bartlett trial should not be repeated in this instance. Although the Court was besieged with applicants for seats, only those persons actively interested in the case were admitted— oven that humorous and altogether necessary person the " descriptive reporter" of the "Pall Mall Gazette" b«-ing at first ruthlessly excluded. Mrs Crawford and her two sisters, Mrs Harrison and Mrs Ashton Dilke, wore amongst the earliest to take their scats on the opening day, and it was interesting to note the close attention the first-named bestowed on Sir Charles Dilke under cross-examination. Mrs Crawford is 22 years of age, but looks barely IS. She strikes people as the very last person they ■would expect to see mixed up in such an • es'clandrc—a. happy, rosy English girl, with a fresh complexion, brilliant eyes, and smiling demeanour. Those who expected to see her at all downcast must have been considerably surprised. Dressed in the height of fashion, she chatted only with her sistors. and with Mr Geo. Lewis (her lawyer), looking the picture of un- , embarrassed ladyhood, and a marked contrast to her stricken and sorrowful husband sitting Opposite. Sir Charles Dilke has aged terribly during the last few months. Both he and his present ■wife are sensitive to a fault, and the agony of mind they have endured from the suggestions of well-meaning friends and the persecutions of cowardly enemies simply pass belief. On Friday morning Sir Charles nad the look of a man who is relieved that the crucial moment has come. He slipped into the witness box with quiet confidence and gave his answers throughout promptly. Once only did he show any embarrassment, and that was when Mr Matthews (in cross-examination) asked, " Wore you the lover of Mrs Eustace (Mrs Crawfords mother?") "I decline to answer that question, " said Sir Charles. The examination of Sir Charles and hisvarious secretaries and servants served to show that one portion of Mrs Crawfords Btory at least must bo absolutely untrue- We are asked to believe that Mrs Crawford was in the habit of continuously calling at Sloane Street at the preposterous hour of eleven in tho morning, and that improprieties ,took place between them (her and Sir Charles) in a drawing-room with unlocked doors, and close to the apartment where tho minister's secretaries were at work. All the servants a r Sloane Street deposed to Sir Charles' peculiarly regular habits and hours, and to the utter impossibility of a lady calling without their knowing it. Very few of them had ever seen Mrs Crawford. The servant subjected to the Bcycrcst cros^eiamination was Sarah Gray, sistor to the mysterious Fanny, who hus again disappeared, notwithstanding every effort on the part of Sir Charles Dilkc's solicitor to secure her attendance as a witness at the trial. Sarah Gray's evidence was most emphatic as to no impropriety having taken placa between the missing Fanny and Sir Charles, and between Mrs Crawford and Sir Charles ; but she scarcely gave satisfaction when questioned as to Fanny's disappearance. On this point, in fact, the woman obviously knew more than she cared to tell, and this fact gave an unpleasant impression. Another witness whose evidence told unfortunately against Sir Charles, for the time being. •was Mdme Dessonlavy, an elderly pensioner of the Dilke family, with whom the missing Fanny had lived as half helper, half lodger, for a time. The implication of what may be termed the prosecution (i.e., Mr Crawfords counsel) was that Mdme Dessonlavy was a procuress who helped Sir Charles in his amours and that he had paid her (and paid her well) for lodging and looking after Fanny. Mdmo Dessonlavy proved that she had lived {with a number of first-class families and bore a good character. She swore most positively that Fanny, acted merely as her servant and that she had paid her fair and regular wages. Nevertheless (as I say) this person's testimony had not a very happy effect. The appearance in the witness-box of Mrs Rogerson, the elderly lady to whom. Mrs Crawford was said in the first instance to have confessed her laches, created a marked sensation. Ah was expected, her evidence proved most important. And here I may remind you that tie theory of those best informed with regard to this case, has been that a Captain Foster was the real seducer of Mrs Crawford, and Sir Chas Dilke a mere scapegoat. The Queen's Proctor unquestionably holds this opinion. Moreover, he believes that Mrs Crawford deliberately victimised Sir Charles ; for amonsrst other cogent witnesses he called a ealigruphic export, yrho swore that the handwriting of the anonymous letters fwhich, remember, warned Mr Crawford against Dilkc) bore a strong rescmlilnce to Mrs Crawfords own. ' ' I have forgotten to mention that air Charles 1 Dilke whilst in the witness box referred to a quarrel between himself and Capt. Foster and hinted that Mrs. Crawford bore him a grudge t»ecau j e of it. The evidence was not very clear as to the why and wherefore of the difference, hut from what I could gather Mrs Ashton Dilke lamented Mrs Crawfords too evident partiality for Capt. Foster to Sir Charles and asked him to use his influence at the War Office to get Foster / Bent abroad. Sir Charles expressed rcjjrcn at Mrs Crawfords foolishness but declined to interfere.'" Nevertheless Captain Foster suspected him of doing so and meeting him one day tried to force a duel. Sir Charles pooh-poohed the notion and treated the whole affair at tho time as a piece of " torn-foolery." Now, however, Mrs Crawford threatens to " pay him out somehow."