Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1886-07-24
A SCOTCH VERDICT,
Sir Charles Dixie Not Proven Guilty OF
Adultery.

Sir Charles Dixie Not Proven Guilty oI
| Adultery.
| LONDON, July 23.-The case Of Crawford
against Crawford and Dixie, was given tu
the jury this afternoon. They returned a
verdict finding Mrs. Crawford guilty OF
| adultery, with Sir Charles Dixie, and grant.
ing Mr.. Crawford divorce.
LONDON, July 23.-The jury was absent
twenty minutes only. The decision arrived
at by the jury is that Crawford ia entitled
| to q divorce from his wife on the ground OF
adultery with Dixie, as decided nisi by Jus.
tice Sir Charles Butt, February II last, the
present case being simply reheariug ut
the Intervention OF the Queens proct or for
the purpose OF ascertaining whether the
ground of coilusion between Mr.. and Mrs.
Crawford or on flew evidence invalidatins
the wife's confession. Tha jury finding in
favor OF the Crawford proceeding confirms
the previous decree, and makes it absolute
at the expiration OF six months attaching
to it. This six months will expire August
21, the decree nisi having been issued Feb
ruary IL. The Queens proctor has been
condemned to pay the costs OF the present.
proceeding.
1t was observed that Mr.. Foster ap-
peared to be watching for the door Sir
Charles would select for his exist and it
was thought the Captain might mean to
follow the Baronet and assault him. Sir
Charles Dixie has issued the following ad-
dress to the Chelsea electors:
Genfiemen:-You are aware that the
Intervention OF the Queens Proctor in tho
case OF Crawford VS.. Crawford on the plea
that said divorce was pronounced contrary
to justice in the case has led to verdict
in which the finding OF Justice Butt has
been affirmed. This decision has
been come to without my being
allowed to appear by counsel
or to address the jury; without my being
allowed to cross-examine for myself and
also without my being supplied with par
ticulars or being given in advance the
names OF the witnesses, all of which, under
the order OF the court, have been freely
supplied to the other side. The Queens
proctor, who accepted some OF my sug-
gestions for cross.examination, and Sir
Walter Phillimore, who maintained my
position with conspicuous ability, appear
ing, however, not as my advoca te.
but q. the representative of a public
official, were also placed under great
disadvantage by having practically to dis
close the defense before the evidence in sup
port OF the charge was given. l have always
known how difficult my cause would be-,
even if it were presented as had reason
to suppose it would be, by my own ad-
visers, and / have never concealed it from
you, but the method of procedure or
dered by the courts intensified the diff
Guilty as far as my public life goes. have
no option but to accept the verdict while
protesting once more against its Justice.
l can only assure you as have already,
solemnly assured you, and with equal
swear to in court that l am in
nocent OF the charges brought against me,
and respectfully and gratefully bid YOU
am yours faithfully.
CHARLES dixie.
Sir Charles Dixie has ordered the sale of
land and reside permanently in South
France.
Mr.. Justice Hammers rendered his che rye
to the jury to-day, and from the beginning
to the end was decidedly against Sir
Charles. The Judge alluded to the absence
OF testimony in confirmation OF the es-
sential portions OF Mr.. Dilke's story as
remarkab BILE, while Mrs. Crawford
was able to describe accurately the bed.
room in Sir Charles house in which she
said he spoiled her, although he swore he
had never taken her into the house; be-
sides this the evidence given by those who
had testified to the correspondent 8 visit to
the house in Warren street was unshaken. ii
the jury believed these wit nesses, the ustice
said, the whole value of Sir Charles tes.
timony was destroyed. The formal yer.
dict OF the jury contains no mention of
Sir Charles Dilke's name. 1t simply de.
clares that no material facts were sup
pressed at the previous trial at which the
decree OF divorce was obtained Justly.
There were no scenes attending the decl:,r-
ing OF the result OF the trial, although he
people outside the court room received The
with some cheering. Sir
Charles vanished Immediately after the
ury's verdict was rendered. Mr.. Donald
Crawford, the plaintiff, when he left the
building was cheered by the people in the
street. Justice Harnous, summing up, is
pronounced by the lawyer a model OF clear
ness, compactness and impartiallty. 1t
was delivered in solemn and impressive
tones, and held the audience spell-bouud.
In reference to the long interval which
elapsed between the first and second acts OF
adultery between Mrs Crawford and the
the Justice thought the
ady's explanation sufficient when she
aid "Sir Charles was not well during
his period. "Mr. Crawfordlsat throughout
he Judges charge with his elbows resting
m a table. his face buried in his hands.
'ir Charles Dixie sat all the time with his
yes fixed on the Judges face, occasionally
lodding agreement to the judicial remarks.
After the verdict was rendered Sir Charles
ooked the picture OF misery Captain
Foster sat near Sir Charles eyeing him
losely and evidently gloating over his
ivals detection.