The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-23

son encouraged his relationship with Mrs. Craw-
ford. Once he took Mrs. Crawford to brothel.
He once quarreled with Sir Charles Dilke-called
him liar, scoundrel and coward because he
had secretly attempted to sever the relationship
between Mrs. Crawford and the witness. He
also attempted to thrash Sir Charles, but desist-
ed at Mrs. Rogerson's entreaty.
Mrs. Rogerson was called. She denied the
statements just made by Captain Foster.
Mr. Matthews then addressed the jury on be.
half of the petitioner, Mr. Crawford, whom the
lawyer described as ''the only one who emerged
clean from amidst this plentiful throwing of the
foulest mud" The lawyer ridicued Sir Charles
Dilke's reasons for remaining silent during the
previous trial, when there was produced
against him strong, damning evidence of
brutal adultery more beitting the treatment of
prostitute in French brothel than refined
English lady" Mr.. Matthews did not mince
matters. lie described things in the yernacuar
with such power as to intensely excite Sir
Charles Dixie, who became livid with rage and
twice jumped to his feet and essayed to speak,
which the Judge sternly prevented him from do
ing.
Mr.. Matthews continuing. referred with in
tense scorn TO 'the Frenchifed Sloan-street or
gies. and said that no man who was not SO Or
talized as to be los ito all shame would act as Sir
Charles had done in them. Where" asked the
lawyer is Fanny, who is accused of sharing in
these orgies, while this young married woman,
who was betrayed and degraded into them, IS be-
ing held up to infamy before the whole English
speaking world for ministering to the horrible
lust OF Dilkei Fanny has vanished. She dared
not appear before this jury" Commenting on the
apparent present lack of sensibilitv manifested
by Mrs, Crawford. Mr.. Matthews said: Doubtless
the last spark of shame and sclf-respect in Mrs.
Crawfords heart expired after the three visits
she made to, Dilkes house. If she fell again.
who is answerable but the man who destroyed
in her every vestige of womanly feelngl The
allegation of conspiracy has completely failed.
ask the jury to indorse the judges decree nisi,
made IN the former trial. | ask the jury r0 re-
lease Donald Crawford from the tie which yet
binds him to life of shame and misery. Ap-
plause
Sir Walter PhilIemare. behalf of the
Queens proctor followed Mr. Matthews. Sir
Walter contended that unless Donald Crawford
proved that his wife committed adultery with
Sir Charles, he was not entitled to decree of
divorce from her in the present case, because
the commission of adultery with the correspond
ent was the particular and sole ground on which
the divorce was asked Crawford might obtain
q divorce on the ground of his wifes adultery
With Captain Foster as shown in this trial. but
he would have to obtain it by bringing another
action in which Captain Foster was correspond
ent Not a single witness had sworn to
seeing Mrs. Crawford either go in or leave Sir
Charles's house, although it was always crowded
with friends and officials. Every gentlemanly
feeling had restrained Sir Charles from going
upon the stand and testifyng during the previous
trial There was dark stain upon his life. and
he was unwilling to submit himself to the pro-
cess of examination which would be directed
towards making an exposure concerning Mrs. e.
Smith, Mrs Crawford's mother The ab
sence of Fanny, Sir Walter argued,
could be similarly accounted for. She,
doubtless, had dark stain upon her life, and it
was enough to keep her out of the witness-box
Concerning Mrs Crawford, Sir Walter said the
evidence showed that she had been badly reared,
and she was most bold abandoned woman.
The jury visby impressed by Mr.. Matth-
ews's crushing oration The court adjourned
until tomorrow. when Sir Walter will conclude
his address Judge Harmon will then sum up,
and it is expected verdict will be rendered in
the afternoon