The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1886-02-17
THE LONDON SCANDAL.
MRS, Crawford Divorced and Sir Charles
Discharged.

LONDON, February 12.-The trial OF the
divorce case OF Donald Crawford against
his wife, in which Sir Charles Dixie is core
respondent, began to-day. Great interest
is felr in the case, and the court was crowded
when it WAS called. Di Ike arrived early and
took his seat in the court room without
being recognized by most OF the people in
attendance. Chamberlain, president OF the
local government board, and many gentle
men prominent in official and social life
we're present. The case being announced.
the petitioners council stated that the first
intimation his client had Of his wiie's un.
faithfulness WAS the receipt OF several an
onymous letters, the writer OF which
warned Cra awford to beware OF the "men-
Der from Chal-ea" (Dilke). Crawford there.
upon made investigation into
HIS wIFE's HABITS,
and found that she had been correspond
ing with one Captain Forster. This offense
he had cnndoned. Receiving further anon
ymous letters Crawl rd taxed his wife with
infidelity. The admitted her guilt and
made a full confession. She said she
had slept two nights in the same bed
with Sir Charles Dixie. His attentions
to her, she said, had commenced
directly after her marriage. He prnfessed
to admire her because of her resemblance
to her mother. The wife OF the petitioner
attributed the synonymous l-tters to the
vindictiveness OF her mother. The petit
TONER'S case rested solely on the wife's con.
fession. The servants Of Cra awford house
hold, counsel said, would give evidence
showing that their mistress had been alb.
sent from home on the night she stated she
had slept with Dixie.
The petitioner, Crawford, was called to
the witness stand and gave testimony sup.
porting the statements Of his counsel.
Crawford said he had been startled by his
wife asking him whether
He WOULD FORGIVE HER
il she had been unfaithful to him. His
wife's sisters had been shown the anOny-
nous letters, and had agreed that they
were in the handwriting Of their mother.
In her confession the witness said Mr..
Crawford had declared that Dixie had
compelled her to enter he'd with Fanny, his
mistress, Sir Charles himself lying beside
them. He then told her again how much
abe was like her mother. Counsel for the
petitioner submitted evidence against Mrs.
Crawford. but submitted none against
Dixie The court granted CrawFO d a
divorce from his wife and dismissed the
charges against Sir Charles Dixie.
SENTIMENT AGAINST SIR CHARLES.
Although Sir Charles Dixie escaped under
the technical plea that Mrs. Crawford's
unsworn confession was insufficient evi
dence the tenor Of the trial has produced a
profund and universal conviction Of bikes
guilt. Justice Buttes in summing up de-
scribed the respondents statements as
clear and distinct, and said they compelled
him to conclude that the adultery charged
WAS actually committed. II tho woman
had been put on the witness box and had
given the same testimony. there would
have been evidence against Dixie. Mr.. Diikes
position wasfurther 'lalnag ged by his refrain
ing from giving testimony. The Attorney
Generals defense-thAt "were we to put
Dix. on the witness box his crnss-exam-
ination would be on indiscretiOns in life
from which no man is free"--was taken as
d frank admission thai Mr.. Dixie was un-
able to give an explanati n. That part Of
Mrs. Craw words confession describing the
depth OF the d-bauchery between Dixie
and her is unfit for publication. The trial
has caused a paltful,npression throughout
the country in regard to thestate ofsociety
morals.