HER REAL LOVER. Another Confession.

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

HER REAL LOVER. Another Confession.

After Mrs Crawford had confessed to her hus band, Sir Charles Dilke came (so she says) and asked i-er to withdraw the damaging state ments, (uUibing her to. say they were the result of hyslciia, ana untrue. When bhe refused to do this, ho übed threats. Sir \V. Philliiuoro commenced his crossexamination ■with home lii?hL skirmishing, (i) abv>ut these alleged threats, and (2) about the nuonymoud letters. Vciy soon, however, ho dropped tnese subjects, and asked the witness btiaiyht out if sho had had immoral relations, with Captain Forster. Turning; binarlly to the Judge, Mrs Crawford said : " Must [ answer that question I" Sir James Hunnon : " Yes, if it is pressed." Upon which thu ludy, in a somewhat subdued Voice, confessed —Yv?, she had (bcnsation). A portion of what iollows is rather important. Sir W. Phillimore: Were you aware that your sister, Mrs Ashton Uilke, knew that yon were on intimate terms with Captain Forster I —She only knew that he wasji friend of mine. i)o you know that she asked Sir Charles Dilkc to p;ive his advice about the matter I —l had heard that Sii Charles spoke to her about it. Had jou been told that Sir Charles had used threatb towards Captain Forstcr ?•—l understood that lie had. Did you bpeak to Captain Foistcr about it?— Ycb, and; he told me that he had had a letter fioin bir C. Diike. Was he angry with Sir Charles? He was vexed about it. Ido not remember any positive threat?. Were y«m youroelf vexed and angry about it I —I was. Where you. on the occasion of the last anonymous letter coming to > our house, in love with Captain Forstor I—l was very much attached to him. Had fiere been any talk of marriage between you? -No, he was engaged to be married at the time. I knew all along he was engaged to ho married, so that there could not have been ciny couvursution on the subject of marriage between Uf>. Did you know all that at tho time you -were coirinittmg those acts of adultery with Captain Forbter I— Witness hesitated to reply. I must ask you to answer the question ?—Witness : Yes. When did Captain Forstcr tell you he was engaged to his present wii'c?-Mv impression ib that, it was in tho winter of IBBi. Divl you ask your husband not to put in Captain Fuister's nr.uie as co-rosyoudcnl.'— Yes, I did. I dm not wibh it to appear, because 1 knew he was going to bo married. Did .sou deny to jour husband that you had ever bten unfaithful with Captain Forsier/Yes, I did. becaubO it was Charles Dilko who ilrst seduced me. Did he as'c you more than once? Did he press you upon what you call the inlulelity with Capta in Forstcr i— Yes. J)id you de.ny it each time i—Y'cs, I did. , JJid you ©ay to him, ' You have alwaj s heen on the w rung track, suspecting people who a.ie innocent, and you have never suspected people who are utility' ?—Yes, 1 have, because ho had alwaj s been sitbpicious about the wrong people, but never about Sir Charles Dilkc. Did ho say 'I never suspected anyone oxcept Captain Forster f —Yes, 1 think [rememberthat. And did you say 'It was not Captain Forster •• the lima who ruined me was Sh- Charles Dilko' i —Yes; I said so, because it was Sir Charles Dilke who ruined me. ■ Did you say Captain Forster always treated iyou like a lady ?-I may 'ha^ o said ho. I have no distinct recollection. Did he press you as to, whether you had not been guilty with Forstev, and did not you deny solemnly that you had been ?—Yes, I denied it. , ,-You told him; then, that thoro had boon no- , thing wrong between you J—Yes, 1 .did. Now, did you hay to your husband that he should havo ample revenge on Sir Charles Dilke t—l have no recollection of making ufac o£ those words. ' -'" "" Have you a note or scrap of paper from Sir C. Dilke in your possession J'-No * I toro Ml up at the time. >>i ? '> \ * ■ >"•• ' '' Didypu soo-Madame tDcssouglavy examined, incdurt?— I "cannot say T re'cogiiisod' her. t l f notyer looked <at Jiher-'when'l'Was.' in Warren- ! •Street. „ t,' )"* fc <^ f t*,,^ i --. y < \»' >''«•' ' 4 Ana "youihave never J?een-to Warren-street 'except these'two times?—No*never. , Have ypu be(sn^tfaia tK<Waro"seVerui J witnesses from Warren-street hero t—Yes, I havo been told. ' ' Have you seen any of them ?—No. Have, you at any time seen any single person whom you can recognise as having seen in Warroh-Btreet ?—None whatevier. Nover -saw anybody except tho woman who lot you in ?—No, never. J > \- ,>

Do you mean to naj Sir C. Dilke on this first occasion said it was the house of an old servant that ho made use of -when he wished I— Yes. What did you understand hjr "made use* of" — for such purposes ?-4Yes, that was what' I. gathered. vv • ;<r * Ithink that' you stftd you did' not meet again until May 6th, and Sir C. Dilke gave as a reason that he was ill Vi es", hc' told me' so. • „< ' Do you mean that was given as an excuse for not meeting you I— Yes; it was. ■ , How came he, to do that ?r-I remember meeting him at a' party, 'and it was natural wo should refer to the subject. With regard to Fanny. Do you mean to say he told you Fanny was a girl whom Sarah had found for him?— Yes. Did you not know until the other day that Fanny was Sarah's sister %— N o," r cannot say. When did you flret learn?— l first learnt from Mrs* RbgorBon. When?-I think in 1885. That was the first time I heard of it. 1 * Did you tell Mrs Rogerson aB out Fanny I— She certainly knew about Fanny. t Do you moan "to «ay Fanny,; being Sarah's sister Sir C. Dilke said Sarah had gofc her for him %— I did not know Sarah was her sister. { Did you undorslaad from Sir Charles that Sarah had ever been his mistress?— Yes, f I understood bo. ! And Fanny his mistress also %— Yes, I certainly thought so. When was it Sir C. Dilke said he had been your mother's lover %— lt may have been in 1882 or 1883. ' On one of those occasions when you were meeting for the purpose of committing adultery 1 —He told me so by degrees. I knew Sir C. Dilke had been an intimate friend for many years. ' ; Hod you never heard before!— No. ■, Before you made that statement to your husband had you never hoard he had been your mother's lover I—No,1 — No, I never' heard of it except from Sir C. Dilke. Was it never alluded to in your family I— Yes, it was more or less known, 1 think ; but it was not a subject we were likely to discuss. On Wednesday morning, when her crossexamination was continued, this awful woman stated Sir Charles had told her poor old Mrs. Rogerson was his mistress, and that was wny lie wished her to be friendly with that lady. (According to Mrs Crawford Sir Charles had a perfectmania for his mistresses being "chummy" together.) Mrs Rogerson was in- Court when the respondent malevolently launched this shaft at her. The unfortunate lady turned white as a sheet, and rose to her 'feet as it to deny the accusation. Mrs Crawfoi - d had tile grace to add that she never believed the story. Mi's Ashton Dilke, who followed her sister into the witness box, swore thai the latter had never faltered in her story or altered its detail since she first confessed. Witness also described how Sir Charlss Dilko called on her and asked to see Mrs Crawford after the latter bad left her husband. The interview was granted, Mrs Dilke remaining within earshot. Sir Charles seemed much excited, and wanted her sister to sign a retraction at once. Witness advised her not to do anything of tho sort before consulting tlieir solicitor, Mr Stewart. Three persons (poor folk) named Hillier, from tho house on Warren-street were examined next. The father (a cobbler) swore that a gentleman strongly resembling Sir Charles Dilko came occasionally to see Mdmc. Davies, who occupied the rooms above them. He usually met a lady there. She seemed about 25 or 3u, and much taller than Mrs Crawford. The gentleman was unquestionably Sir Charles Dilke. He invariably left before the lady, and witness noticed bo used to turn up the collar of his coat as if to avoid observation. Hillier's wife atid family gave corroborating evidence. Both, however, forcibly denied that the lady was Mrs Crawford. Mary Anne Gray, a discharged servant of Sir C. Dillce's, then swore to having came upon Mrs Crawford, in a bedroom at Sloanc r street one morning. In cross-examination, however, she admitted that she 'had denied having' ever seen Mrs Crawford anywhere. Since making that statement she had quarrelled with Sarali Gray (Sir Charles's housekeeper) and left the employ. Mr Stewart, Mr Crawfords family solicitor, is also Mrs Rogcrson's brother. He was now examined as to the anonymous letters, and reluctantly expressed an opinion that they were in the old lady's handwriting. He further dcpo&ed to being on bad terms with Sir Charles Dilke, and to having prohibited his calling on Mrs Rogerson. The quarrel was not however in any way connected with his sister's honour. Captain Forster was the last witness called. The gallant officer, examined by Mr Matthews, inlormcd the Court of his engagement in September, 1884, of its rupture, and of the marriage in September, 1385, and he made no attempt to conceal his. relations with Mrs Crawford, He sta'cd that he informed her of the circumstance at iho time of the first engagement. Mrs Rogerson, he s.wore, encouraged his meeting Mrs Crawford at her house ; and he added that on a certain date he called Upon her at her request personally to castigate Sir Charles Dilke — " that is," he added, with a winning smile. " if Icoulddo so." The gallant captain gave his oviclence with affable readiness, and calmly surveyed the scene as judge and counsel discussed what the former had termed an irregularity. Then ho unhesitatingly " presumed that the house in Hillstreet, lo which ho used to tako Mrs. Crawford whs a house of ill fame To answer inquiries upon (he now points which had been thus unexpectedly raised, and which his lordship intimated ought not to have been introduced, Mrs Rogerson was recalled. She "nas naturally somewhat excited after the allegations made by Captain Forstcr, and springing into the box loudly and unhesitatingly Rine the lie to his statements. Sir Charles Dilke also was put in the witness-box lor three minutes, and he also denied the Captain's evidence, especially that portion which 1 imuuted to him tho words, after he had been called a scoundrel and a liar, " and I fear you must add a coward too." At last, at a quarter to cloven, cimo the beginning of tho last stages of the trial. There yet remained the speeches of counsel, the summing up of the judge, and Die verdict of tho jury; and Mr Matthews, Q.C.. counsel for Mr Crawford, had the ear of the jury to begin with. After a brief but telling allusion to his client as one whose stainless life was clear of "tho nnul and tilth with which the actors in the terrible sto y are spattered," the learned counsel entered upon a scathing attack upon Sir Charles Dillco. Sir Charles Russell, at the close of one , of tho more robust, p*iJfesages, rose to speak ; but Sir James Hanncn ""sharply told him he would not allow him to interfere, and his lordship, with marked emphasis on the third word added, " these are arguments, nnd the jury will deal with them." Some half an hour »»f tor the remarks of Mr Matthews, most cutting in their directness and fmco, were evidently too much for Sir Charles Dilke, who, at tor once or twice calling out "No," and shifting restlessly in his seat, lumped to hi.s feet to protest. r lhc •judge sternly ordered him to sit down, and referred him to Sir Walter Phillimorc. to whom Sir Charles 'at once turned. That gentleman, however, was absorbed in the perusal of his brief and made no response to either the suggestion ot the judgo or Ihe appeal of Sir Charles Dilke. Thereafter Sir Charles, as if convinced that he was powerless to protest either by counsel or in person, resigned himself to the inevitable. The ordenl must have boon trying to him, since Mr Matthews, who had little to say about his client, continually returned to Sir Charles Dilke. assailing him with a will, and in the strongest of language. Spite of a good deal which was in tho nature ot Old Bailey oratory, tho snocch was an able one of its kind, and during the three hours and v, quarter over which it ranged, there were many forcible passages. Towards the end of his remarks the learned Couusel returned directly to Mr Crawford. . He asked tho jury to put an end to this litigation by a decided verdict that would deliver bib client from tho terrible burden he hml lo bear, and free him from a marriage, which had boon disgraced by Mrs Crawford. One of tho young men clustering near a doorway betrayed a desire to clap hands when the speech finished. There was a rustic of papers, mingled with a sbufHuig in the scuts that was taken to b" tho premonitory symptoms of applause. If such wuh the intention tho demonstration was, to use a familiar forumula, " promptly suppressed." 'Die smooth soft voice and gentlemanly style of Sir Walter Phillimore, who renlied on the whole case for tho Queen's Proctor. formod a remarkable contrast to the rudo vigour oC the counsel who preceded him. To the general auditory, no doubt, the 'mild persuasions of Sir Walter were not so entertaining as 1 tho hearty tomahawking of Mr Matthews, Q.C. Sir Waller explained fairly that his duty to Hu- Oharl-- sDiike, was only of an indirect character, and that the person lie represented was the Queen's Proctor. Ho carefully pointed out tho many discrepancies and wild improbabilities of Mrs Crawfords accubations, the jury listening with marked attention, and sonic of them taking notes. _ The Judge then summed up and tho jury retired, and returned a. yordict declaring that the Queen's Proctor had not made out his ease, which praotlcallv is a verdict affirming that the adultery of Mrs Crawford with Sir Charles Dilke had boon proved. . '

A friend tell* a sfory o£ one Mr R., who 1 rlejightedin the, false claim that he has on toym^ with, all the famous, members .of the, ;J,iterati.,. One, evening, at a social gather- 1 ing, 1( a young. Judy engaged Mr R. in conver-* sation about books anT authprp. _ !' Did. you know George Sand ?" ' the young lady <jfeked. " Know George Sand ? Should say I did. We used to rocm together." By a majority of four the South ' Australian Legislative Aeeembly have decided to say daily prayers. They will poesibly pray to be made honest. . ' ,