Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1886-07-17
GOOD STORY FOR EMIL lola.
The Developments in the Great Craw.
ford Divorce Suit Now on
Trial.
Sir Charles Dixie Accuses the Woman
Of Being a Perjurer and
Conspirator.
Some Of His Previous Escapades Brought
to Light...HOW q French
Maid Figures.

LONDON, July 16.-The ~rehearing in the
divorce case OF Crawford against Crawford
and Dixie, opened by the Queens proctot,
was begun to day. Sir Charles Dixie, co.
respondent. was present, as also were Mrs.
Crawford and her sister. The court room
was crowded. Counsel for the Queens
proctor, in opening the case, asserted that
the servants mentioned by Mrs. Crawford
in her confession as being present or wit
Messing her many meetings with Sir Charles
Dixie at his house OF elsewhere did not con
firm Mrs. Crawford's statement in any
particular. The maid who Mrs. Craw.
ford said dressed her in Sir
Charles apartments after his de-
parture from his appointment thera
denied, the counsel said, that she
ever did as Mrs. Crawford alleged. The
ford confessed brought her into relation
with Sir Charles Dixie, had, the Counsel
admitted. disappeared, but Dixie himself
would testify and show that he was not
with Mrs. Crawford on the dates she alleges
he was in company with her, and that
Fannie, the woman who kept the house on
Warren street wherein Mrs. Crawford said
she met Sir Charles would show that the
respondent never slept there as alleged.
Sir. Charles Dilke's c0achman would show
that he never staid long at Mrs. Crawford's
house waiting for his master to terminate
his visits to Mrs. Crawford's. The coach
man would further testify that he could
have ses n if anything wrong had been done
in the room where Mrs. Crawford received
Sir Charles in her own house, as the coach
man from his box could easily see over the
whole area OF the room.
A concensns Of opinion makes the rehear-
ing a strong attempt to white-wash Dixie.
Mrs. Crawford adheres to every statement
in her confession.
Sir Charles Dixie, being sworn, denied
totally the allegations concerning him
made by Mrs. Crawford in her confession.
Continuing, Sir Charles declared that Mrs.
Crawford's confession was an act OF de-
liberate conspiracy against him. He &C.
counted for the animus prompting this
through q friend, advised Mrs. Crawford
to abandon an intrigue she had then with
Capt. Forster. The Captain, on learning
Of this advice, charged witness during an
interview in 1885, with trying to blast his
(Forster's) character, and challenged wit
ness to a duel. Witness declined the chal-
lenge and treated the affair as utterly
ridiculous. Witness then proceeded
to finish his evidence by suggesting
that Capt. Forster and Mrs. Crawford
finding that the discovery of their liason
was imminent, concocted the story against
witness contained in the lady's confession.
The Court was crammed with notables, in
Guiding many well known ladies. The re-
porters had difficulty in obtaining seats.
Crowds OF people were unable to gain ad.
mittance. Mrs. Virginia Crawford was
dressed quietly in q brown costume. She
was accompanied by her sisters, Mrs. Ash
ION Dixie and Mrs. Harrison. She arrived
early and conversed animatedly with her
counsel, Mr.. George Lewis. Sir Charles
Dixie, who was accompanied by his wife,
looked careworn and followed the. evidence
keen interest. It was gener-
ally thought that Sir Walter Philli-
more, who represented the proctor, was
somewhat biased in favor.of the. correspond
ent. When summoned as a witness, Sir
Charles was visibly affected. In walking to
the witness box he almost staggered, but
soon recovered his self-possessi0n and an
swered the questions with clearness and de-
cision. For instance, he replied to the
question, "Did you make love to Virginia
with mo. sir; certainly not"
Mrs. Crawford and Sir Charles frequently
exchanged ~glances. and the former smiled
a~nusedly. when Sir Charles denied that a
liason had existed between them. The
in the courtroom showed
great interest in the narratives of the wit
ness and regarding Sir Charles alleged in
innate relations with a Frenchwoman who !
was formerly in the service of his father,
and afterwards in his own service. Sir
Charles, it was stated, allowed her f4O
and when she was in England
visited her at No. Is Warren
street. Much interest was also taken in
the story OF how mysterious Fanny"
vanished, r%eappeared, vanished again be-
|ore the last trial, re%appeared afterwards
and gave evidence to Sir Charles Dilke's
and finally vanished, and is now
1ot to be found. 1t is the general talk that
Sir Charles had not left a favorable i'm