The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-08-09
DIXIE EouND GUILTY.
Verdict Of the Jury I'm the CraW
ford Divorce Case.

Verdict Of the Jury I'm the CraW-
ford Divorce Case.
The jury in the case of Crawford against
Crawford and Dixie, returned a verdict
finding Mrs. Crawford guilty of adultery
with Sir Charles Dixie, and granting Mr..
Crawford a divorce. The jury was absent
twenty minutes only. The decision arrived
at by the jury is that Mr.. Crawford is en-
titled to a divorce from his wife on the
ground of adultery with Dixie, as decided
niSi by Justice Sir Charles Butt, February
18th last, the present case being simply a
rehearing at the Intervention of the Queens
Proctor, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the decree RiSi should not be set
aside on the ground of collision between
Mr.. and Mrs. Crawford, or onheW evidence
invalidating the wife's confession. The
jury finding in favor of Crawford. the pro-
ceeding confirms the previous decree and
makes it absolute at the expiration of the
six months attaching to it. The six months
will expire August list, the decree nisi hav-
ing been issued February 18th. The Queens
Proctor has been condemned to pay the
costs of the present proceedings.
Justice Hannen's summing up Is pro-
nounced by lawyers generally model of
clearness, compactness and impartiality.
It was delivered in solemn and impressive
tones and held the audience spellbound.
From beginning to end the charge was de-
cidedly against Sir Charles Dixie. The
Judge alluded to the absence from the tes-
timony of confirmation of the essential por-
ton of Dilke's story as certainly to be re-
marked; while Mrs. Crawford was able to
describe accurately the bedroom in Sir
Charles house, although he swOre that he
had never taken her into the house. Be-
sides this, the evidence given by those
Il AaI Sd 60 Aha Il -
visits to the house in Warren street was
unshaken. If the jury believed these wit
nesses, the Justice said, the whole value of
Sir Charles DiIke's testimony was destroy
ed. In reference to the long interval which
elapsed between the first and second acts of
adultery, the Justice thought the lady's
explanation sufficient when she said Sir
Charles Dixie was not well during this
period.
Mr.. Crawford sat throughout the Judges
charge with his elbows resting on table,
his face buried in his hands. Sir Charles
Dixie sat all the time with his eyes fixed on
the Judges face, occasionally nodding an
agreement to judicial remark. After the
verdict was rendered. Sir Charles looked
the picture of misery. Captain Foster sat
near Dixie, eying him closely and evidently
gloating over his rivals detection. 1t was
observed that Foster appeared to be watch
ing for the door Sir Charles would select
for his exit, and it was thought the Captain
might mean to follow the baronet and
assault him.
The formal verdict of the jury contains
no mention of Sir Charles Dixie by name.
1t simply declares that no material facts
were suppressed at the previous trial at
which the decree of divorce was obtained
justly. There were no scenes attending the
declaring of the result of the trial, although
the people outside of the courtroom re-
ceived the announcement with cheering.
Sir Charles Dixie vanished imm edistely
after the jury's verdict was rendered. Dom
aid Crawford, the plaintiff, when he left the
building, was cheered by the people in the
street.
Dixie, in an address to the electors of
Chelsea, still maintains his innocence. He
has ordered the sale of his house at Chel-
sea. He will leave England and reside
permanently in the south of France.