The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-13
THE CRAwFoRD-D1LKE CASE.
The Queens Proctor Having INTERVIEWED,
Will Now be Tried by a Jury.


London Times
In the case of Crawford VS.. Crawford and
Dixie, the Queens proctor intervening, an ap-
plication was made yesterday, June 80, to Sir
James Hannen. the president of the probate
divorce and admiralty division, as to the mode
in which the Queens proctors Intervention
should be tried-whether before the court itself
or the court and jury, and also as to the time
of trial ~
Sir Walter Philimore. who with Mr. Bar
grave Deane) appeared for the Queens proctor,
said he held a certificate by which his lordshlp
in chambers had certified that this case was one
which ought to be tried by special jury. On
the part. of the Queens proctor he willingly ac-
cepted that certificate, because he thought that
the mode of trial indicated by his lordship was
the proper one He had only now to apply that
the case should be entered in the list of special
jury cases for the present sittings. This would
give everybody sufficient time, because the
special list would not be entered on till the 10th
prox.
Mr. Inderwick, @. c.. who with Mr. Danck-
wertsl appeared for the petitioner, submitted
that the case was one which ought to be tried by
his lordshp himself without tne assistance of
any jury. The intervention had been taken on
facts very different from those on which inter
ventfon vas usually based. There was the al
/
were material facts not brought to the knowl
edge of the court" but the facts alleged were
tain matters which it was alleged could be sworn
to by witnesses who had not been examined.
This was the very first case of an Intervention
on such "facts," and the question to be decided
was one of very considerable difficulty, and one
which only legally trained mind could properly
appreciate.
Another reason why the case should not be
tried by jury arose from the position which
4 Eo had nc a
ter before proceedings in this court were insti-
tuted against him, and from the action taken By
him since the trial of the case before Mr.. Justice
Butt Sir Charles Dixie, almost immediately
after the trial and on subsequent occasions,
made public speeches in which he asserted
his innocence, and discussed the merits
Of the divorce suit. When the speeches he al
luded TO were being delivered the Queens proc
tor had not shown cause If he had Mr.. Craw-
ford's legal advisers would probably have ad-
vised him to apply to this court to prevent the
delivery of such addresses pending the hearing
of the intervention. As it was, those speeches,
taken in connection with Sir Charles Dilke's
former position as Cabinet Minister, were
likely to influence some If not ALL of the jury.
On those grounds he asked his lordship to di-
rect that the issue between the Queens proctor
and the petitioner be tried by the court itself.
The President was clearly of opinion that the
case was one which should be tried by jury.
As to the difficulty of the question, he did not
see it: but if it existed it could be overcome.
There was nothing in the issue which jury
would not be capable of approaching. Then, if
the case was ole fit to be tried by jury. were
the special circumstances referred to by Mr.. In
berwick such as ought to prevent the court from
directing that it should be so tried2 AS to Sir
Charles Dilkes position, all the world knew that
he had been a Cabinet Minister. There was
nothing in his having filled that position which
was likely to influence a jury
AS to the speeches, he had not before him the
dates on which they were delivered. OF course,
no person who had attended one of the meetings
which Sir Charles Dixie had addressed with
reference to this suit ought to be sworn on the
Jury but to say that the reading Of those
speeches untitled persons from forming an iM-
partial opinion was to lay down aprinciple which
would be of wider application than Mr.. Inder
wick had suggested, because those speeches had
been published all over the country. He could
not adopt Mr. Inderwick's view He did not be-
lieve that the jury were likely to be prejudiced
by the position of the parties or anything which
had occurred. He believed that, taking his di-
rection on legal points, they would act on the
evidence, AM that only. The ease must be tried
by a special jury.
Mr. Inderwick suggested that as there was to
be special jury it would be better to have a city
of London than Middlesex jury, Chelsea being
within Middlesex.
The president said that might be arranged be-
tween the parties.
Mr. Deane applied that day might be fixed
for the trial, as his Lordship had directed that
Mrs. Crawford should be subepDaed.
The President could not fix day, but he di-
rected that Mrs Crawford should be subpenaed
for the 10th Of July.