The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-02-22
THE CRAWF0RD-DILKE CASE.
The Husband Gets y Divorce and Sir
Charles Acquitted.

LONDON, February 12th.-The trial of
the divorce case of Donald Crawford
against his wife, in which Sir Charles
Dixie is correspondent, was begun to-
day. Great interest is felt in the case
and the Courtroom was crowded when
it was called. Dixie arrived early and
took his seat in the Courtroom without
being recognized by most of the people
in attendance. The petitioners counsel
stated that the first intimation his client
had of his wife's unfaithfulness was on
the receipt OF several anonymous letters,
the writer of which warned Crawford to
beware of 1.-The Member from Chelsea
(Dilke). Crawford thereupon made an
investigation into his wife's habits and
found that she had been corresponding
with one Captain Forster. This offense
he had condoned. Receiving further
anonymous letters, Crawford taxed his
wife with infdelity. She admitted her
| guilt and made a full confession She
said she had remained two nights with
! Sir Charles Dixie. His attentions to
her, she said, had commenced directly
after her marriage. He professed TO adj
mire her because of her resemblance to
her mother. The wife OF the petitioner
had attributed the anonymous letters to
the vindictiveness of her mother. Petit
toner's case rested solely on his wife's
confession. The servants of Crawford s
household, counsel said, would give evil
dence showing that their mistress had
been absent from home on the evenings
she stated she had been with Dixie
The petitioner, Crawford, was called to
the witness stand, and gave testimony
supporting the statements of his counsel.
Crawford said he had been startled by
his wife asking him whether he would
forgive her if she had been unfaithful to
him. His wife's sisters had been shown
the anonymous letters, and agreed that
they were in the handwriting of their
mother. Counsel for petitioner submit
ted evidence against Mrs. Crawford, but
submitted none against Dixie. The
Court granted Crawford a divorce from
his wife and dismissed the charges
against Sir Charles Dixie.
The consensus of opinion is that tn,
filthy revelations made in the trial anC
the failure to attempt either to deny o
? disprove the charges against him practi
D cally ruin Sir Charles Dixie. Although
: Sir Charles Dixie escaped under tn
> technical plea that Mrs. Crawford's III
: sworn confession was insufficient evi
I dence, the whole tenor of the trial ha
s produced profound and universal col
y viction of bikes guilt. Justice Butts i
e summing up described the respondent
e statements as clear and distinct, an
8 said they compelled him to conclude ths
D the adultery charged was actually con
mitted. If the woman had been put
the witness box and had given the sam
e testimony there, she would have bee
b evidence against Dixie.
Is bikes position was further damage
q by his refraining from giving testimon
The Attorney Generals defense-"We
L we to put Dixie in the witness box, h
q cross-examination would be on the indi
Ie cretions in life from which no man
y free'-was taken as frank admissio
"a that Dixie was unable to give an expla
e alton. That part of Mrs. Crawford
2 confession describing the depths of
bauchery between Dixie and her is I'M
for publication. The trial has caused
- painful impression throughout the cou
try in regard to society morals.
New YORK, February 18th. = tt
"Herald's" London correspondent sa,
:, the decision in the Dixie case puzzles la
= men and divides legal opinion, and tn
the general opinion is that the result
the case is the outcome of some speci
arrangement, not to say judicial sea
dial.