The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-02-27 00:00:00

THE DECREE IN THE CRAWFORD
CASE.

-
The following is a copy of the decree issued in this
case: Extracted fmm the Principal Registry of the
Probate. Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the
High Court of Justice of this Division. "Before the
Hon. Sir Charles E. Butt, Knight, one of the Justices
of the High Court sitting in the High Court of
Justice, Strand, in the county of Middlesex: Craw-
ford against Crawford v. Dilke, February 12, 1880.
The judge having taken the oral evidence of the
petitioner and of the witnesses produced on his
behalf in support of the petition filed in this cause,
and having heard the counsel thereon on behalf of
the petitioner and the co-respondent, the respondent
appearing by counsel, but not otherwise defending the
suit at the trial thereof, dismissed the co-respondent
from the suit, and gaNe to him his costs to be paid by
the petitioner, and further pronounced that the peti-
tioner had sufficientli proved the contents of the said
petition, and decreed that the marriage which had been
solemnised on the 27th day o! July, 1881, at All Saints
Church, in the parish of All Saints, Knightsbridge, in
the county of Middlesex, between Donald Crawford, the,
petitioner, and Virginia Mary Crawford, then Smith
spinster, the respondent, be dissolved by reason that
since the celebration thereof the said respondent has
been guilty of adultery; unless sulcient cause be
shown to the court why this decree should not be
made absolute within six months from the making
thereof.—(Signed) DAVID HENRY OWEN, Registrar.
The contents of the said petition allege repeated
acts of adultery at the brothel in Tottenham-court-
road, at Mr. Crawford's house in Young-street, and at
Sir Charles Dilke's house in Sloane-street, on certain
specified dates. It was because of those specified acts
of adultery between Sir Charles Dilke and Mrs. Craw-
ford that the petitioner prayed for the divorce which
has been granted.

Much misapprehension of the judgment in "Craw-
ford v. Crawford" has arisen through forgetting that
the law of evidence is directed purely to results. So
far as any result either of damages or costs to Sir
Charles Dilke is concerned, he has been pronounced
innocent of the charge brought against him; but so
far as the result to Mrs. Crawford is concerned Sir
Charles Dilke has been pronounced guilty. It is sup-
posed that the law assumes an impossible state of
facts, but it does not. It finds as a fact the guilt of
the two persons so far as the consequences to one of
them are concerned, but not so far the consequences
to the other are concerned. If the guilt of Sir Charles
Dilke with Mrs. Crawford is not involved in the decree
of divorce, a gross injustice has been done to Mrs.
Crawford, because it was not suggested that she was
guilty with anyone else. If there is any reasonable
suspicion that Mrs. Crawford was not guilty with Sir
Charles Dilke. the Queen's Proctor will at once inter-
vene, as the decree has been obtained by plain collu-
sion. Mr. Justice Butt's references to Sir Charles
Dilke's " position " have also been misapprehended, as
if his social or political position, or his position as a
Privy Councillor were meant. The true interpreta-
tion of them is that his position as accused of a quasi-
criminal charge justified him in availing himself of
any advantage which the law gave him, especially
that of holding his tongue.—The Law Journal.

A very full meeting of the council of the Chelsea
Liberal Association was held at the Chelsea Baths,
King's-road, on Friday night. After the ordinary
business of the meeting was disposed of, Sir C. W
Duke gave an exhaustive statement with regard to
the recent divorce case, and answered a large number
of questions that were put to him, The following
resolution, proposed by Mr. John Westlake, Q.C.,
M.P., seconded by Mr. W. iEneas Smith (of the
Eleusis Club), and supported by Mr. Joseph Cowan,
M.P., and Mr. Joseph F. B. Firth, was carried with
six dissentients amidst the greatest enthusiasm :
" That this meeting, having heard the statement of
Sir Charles Dilke, heartily accepts his denial of the
charges which have been brought against him, and
expresses its continued confidence in him." An
amendment which was moved obtlined only 11
supporters, in a meeting of 300.