The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-07-16
SCANDAL IN ENGLISH man LIFE.
The Duke of Marlborough. Eldest son and
Lady AyIesford.
Ffmn ne ran Miu Gdssi,e.

Fton ne ran M,U caShe
In the Probate and Divorce Division OF the
High Court Of Justice on. July 3, the case Of
Aylcsford Vs. Avlea lord and Bandi Jrd was con-
Guided before SIR james Hammer nnd q special
Jury 1t vas petition presented by Homage.
Earl OF Ay.esi2rd. for ihe dissolution OF his
her misconduct with the Marquis Of Bandford.
Both defrn lanls had iilcd answers denying the
charge. and the Queens Proctor interviewed and
alleged collusion mtwccn NE parties, anu,
further. that the petitioner himself had been
guilty OF mis- ondurt the Earl o. Aylcsford
married on the sih Of February. 1871. at St,
Georges Hanover square and that there had
been two children. the issue OF tho marriage.
one of whom was born in 1915 Tao ntorven-
Jon OF the Queens Proctor was the principal
issue.
Sir James Hammer said the Queens Proctor
had nut one duty TO pcrlUrm-tO take care that
a pet toner who by his own conduct has olsen
titled himself to n divorce should not obtain n
decree. That had been done. and Il WINS not
necessary for him the Queens PrOctOrl To pro-
Ga bad brnn uf w vi au 1 and SIsa
that he had been guilty OF collision with Lord
h!andford. as The Evidence was not denied;
entering the witness box that was n matter on
trely for his tSir j. lInnncnsl discretion. but
In the ordinary course they would be entitled to
do 80. This would DO done but nothing fur
Mrs, Dixie was then called. and in answer. to
Charles Dixie in 1866. Her husband had been
on intimate terms with Lord Aylcsford. He
was cons,antly IN the habit OF visiting at Pack,
with her husbands full consent; Two letters
were here placed in Mrs. Dilke's handsl
Sir James Hammer objected to the letters be-
Sir II. James-May I ask that your lordship
will look ut those letters
Sir j.. Hannen-To what do they refer
Sir II. Janes-Thcy have reference to the
Sir j. Hannen-The letters cannot be referred
to-.
Sir II. Jamcs-Hnve you, Mrs. Dixie, on your
solemn oath ever been guilty OF famil iarty OF
an Improper kind with Lord Aylesford
Mrs, Dilke-No meyer, upon my solemn onth.
Sir II. James-And when the subject was first
mentioned you took steps 10 vindicate your
character from aspcrsion
Mira Dlkc-I did.
Lord AylesfQrd then entered. the box. His
lordship said he had known Mrs. Dixie ever
Since he was a boy.
Sir II. James-On your oath. Lord Aylesford.
hgayo you ever upon any OCCASION been guilty
OF Improperly with Mrs. Dixie
Lord Aylesiord-On my oath. never.
sir J. Hammer hoped what he had said would
intimate To the Jury sufficiently the view he took
OF the case. Neither he nor they We're called
upon to pronounce any opinion upon the uucs-
ton OF whether or not the petitioner and Mrs
Dixie were guilty of impropriety. They had
heard their denial. and their denial OF course
could be Of little value in n court OF justice. un-
less they heard the evidence upon which the
charge would have been founded; but as an in
James. he tSir J. Hannenl had allowed them to
make the statement upon oath. The Jury were
discharged from finding any verdict upon the
question Of their epilt-that remained "A matter
undetermined by that court at any rate.
The jury then found that Edith. Countess Of
Aylcsiord. hnd committed adultery with Charles.
Marquis OF Blandforl that the Earl 81 Ayles-
ford had acted in collision. and further that the
Earl II Aylcsford had committed adultery
Upon this finding. his lurdship dismissed the
petition ~ the Earl Of Aylcsiord. and condemn:
ed the Earl 81 Aylesiord aud the MARQUIS Of
BlauufOru IN the costs OF the suit.