The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1886-02-13
SIR CHARLES DILKE
RUINED BY MS ENTIRE NEGLECT
To Deny or DisprOVo the serious Charges
agaInst him Made iu the Crawford Dl.
VOreO PFOuesdIOEi-Th Husband Sc.
eursS the Divorce he Prayed for.

LONDON, Feb. l2,-The trial of the d.
vorcs case Of Mr., Donald Crawford against
his wife, in which Sir Charles Dixie was
correspondent, was tried to-day. Great
interest was felt in the case, and the court
room was crowded when 1t was called.
Sir Charles Dixie arrived early, and took
his seat in the courtroom without being
recognized by most Of the people in at
tendance, Mr.. Chamberlain, President
OF the Local Government Board, and
many gentlemen prominent in official and
social life, were also present. The case
being announced, the petitioners counsel
stated that the first intimation he had Of
his Wiie's unfAithtnlnsss was on the re-
Ceipt OF several anonymous letters, the
writer OF which warned Mr.. Crawford
to beware OF "tha member from Chelsea"
lSir Charles Dilke). Mr.. Crawford
thereupon made an investigation into
his wile's habits, and found that ahe
had bsen corresponding with one Gap.
tain Forster, This olIense lie has con-
doned, Resolving further anonymous
letters, Mr.. Crawford taxed his vile with
infdelity, She admitted her guilt and
made q full confession. Dilke's attentions
to her, she said, had commenced directly
alter her marriage. He proiessed TO AL
mire her because oi her resemblance to
her mother,
The petitioner, Mr.. Crawford, was
called to the witness stand and gave testi.
mony supporting the statements Of his
counsel. Mr.. Crawford said he lad been
startled by his wife asking him whether
lie would forgive her II she had been un.
faithi1l to him. His wifes sisters had
been shown the anonymous letters, and
had agreed that they were in the hand
writing Of their mother,
Counsel for the petitioner submitted the
evidence against Mrs, Crawford, but sub
milted none against Sir Charles Dixie.
The court granted Mr.. Crawford q divorce
from his vile and dismissed the charges
against Sir Charles Dixie.
filthy revelations made In tho trial and
his failure to attempt to either deny or dis
prove the charges against him have praC-
tically ruined Sir Charles Dixie.
Although Sir Charles Dixie escaped
under the technical plea that Mrs, CraW-
ford's uusworn confession was insufficient
evidence, the whole tenor Of the trial has
produced q profound aud uuiveral convlc.
ton OF Dilke's guilt. Justice Butts, in
summing up, described the respondents
statements as clear, distinct and sub.
stantial, and said they compelled him to
conclude that the adultery charged was
actually committed. II the woman had
been put In the witness box and had given
the same testimony there would have
been evidence against Dixie.
Dilke's position was futhtr damaged by
his reiraing from giving evidence. The
Attorney Generals deience-"Were we
To put Dilke in the witnes9b box his cross
examination would be on indiscretions in
life from which no man Ia free"-was
taken as frank admission that Dixie was
unable togiye anexplShstion. That part Of
Mrs. Crawiord's confession describing the
depth OF debauchery between Dixie and
her Is unfit for publication.
The trial has caused painful impres.
sion throughout the country in regard TO
the state Of society morals.