Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

37 articles on this Page

THE CRAWFORD DIVORCE SUIT.

News
Cite
Share

The folUtoing appeared in our Second Edition of Saturday last, J THE CRAWFORD DIVORCE SUIT. SEARIXG OF THE QUEEN'S PROCTORS CASE. SPEECH BY COUNSEL. SIR CHARLES DILKE IN THE WITNESS-BOX. t" CENTRAL NEWS TELEGRAM.J LONDON, FRIDAY. The Crawford divorce case came on icrre-heariog on the intervention of tiie Queen's Proctor, in the Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice this morning, before Sir J.IOK-S Hmnen and a special jury. The case wna the only one on the list, and the trial is expected to be a lengthy ooe. As on the last occasion, au intense desire was shown by 1111 sections of the pubhc to gain admis- sion to the court, and the officials had not alii tie trouble to provide accommodation for those whose duty necessitated their presence. Mr. Murphy. Q.C., had a watching brief in the cue; Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., appeared for Mrs. Crawford, the respondent, who, with her sister, was among the earlier arrivals. she had a. seat immediately in front of her counsel. Sir Charles entered the court at half-past ten and immediately afterwards Sir James Hanaen took ))is seat, and the jury were sworn. THE CASE FOR THE QUEEN'S PROCTOK. Mr. Bargrave DeaQe, in opening the case, said the Queen's Proctor intervened, alleging that the decree nisi had been obtained contrary t:) justice, by reason of material facts not being laid before the court. Sir Walter Phillimore then detailed at some length the history of the married life of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, and while he was so engaged too Attorney-General (Sir Henry James) entered the court. Sir Walter Phillimore spoka of the confession of the respondent to her husband that she had been guilty of adultery, Coming to the last trial, he explained the nature of the evidence on which the decree nisi was granted. The learned judge held that ther* was then no evidence against Sir Chas. Dilke, although Mrs. Crawford had been guilty of idultery. The Queen's Proctor thought it incum- bent to intervene, with a view to seeing if Mr. Crawford was entitled to a divorce, and if there was any evidence of adultery on the respondent's part. If they were of opinion that Mrs. Crawford had not been unfaithful with Sir Charles Dilke, or if tbey thought she had not been actually unfaith- ful, however impure her mind might be, then they must reverse the previous deci- sion, and leave it to the petitioner (Mr. Crawfordi, if he thought proper, to institute fresh proceedings witlI some other co-respondent. Sir Walter Phiilimore then dealt with Mrs. Craw- ford's confession to her husband that she had been guilty of adultery with Sir Charles, not only at his house in Sloane-street, but also at No. 65. Warren- street, Tottenham Court-road. The only corrobora- tion of the confession was that of two servants as to the fact that the respondent had been from her jonoe on certain nights, which she di i not spend, is she had told them, at her sister's. In regard to Captain Forstei's position in the case, the petitioner for a time suspected him, but the respondent denied any acts of misconduct with him. An examination of Mrs. Crawford's diary showed entries in pencil of Sir Charles Dilke's initials, as well as those of other persons, which would require explanations from her. The Queen's Proctor had made inquiries, with the result that he had been unable to substantiate her statement that certain servants must" have fully known of ber conduct. Those servants would be called and would deny that they had any reason to suspect misconduct, for they would state that Mrs. Craw- ford only called on Sir Charles in the usual visiting hours. Mrs. Crawford had stated that a woman named Sarah was In the habit of dressing her at Sir Charles's; but the servant bearing that name would swear it was an entirely untrue statement that she had ever dressed Mrs. Crawford, while she would be corroborated by another female servant, who would swear that it was impossible for the respondent to have been in Sir Charles's bedroom at the time mentioned without her knowledge. The woman Fanny, who had been mentioned as having been with Sir Charles at. the same time na tho respondent, was undoubtedly a woman named Fanny Grey, a niece ot tiio head servant Sarah Grey, and formerly in Sir Charles's employ. Kvidence would be given also to show that silo could not have been in Sir Charles's rooms at the time illeged. It had been intended to call her, but both the and her husband had disappeared. As to Sir Charles Dilke, he had been subpoenaed, and would give evidence denying on oath that he had ever committed adultery with Mrs. Crawford; and as to tho specific dates on which tho alleged adultery occurred, he would produce evidence, especially is regarded February 23, to show it was impossible ;or hils to have been at Warren-street; wllile as lo night dates, evidence would be given :0 show Mrs. Crawford "as not in his hou. By direction of his lordship, lrs. Crawford would ae called. She was, in one sense, a witness for her lusband, for she adhered to her statement against 3ir Charles. Through her lawyers she had fur- aished a statement adhering to her assertion as to the adultery in Warren-strpet. and she had further fixed the date of the second visit, there ns the 6th of May, 1832. Sir Charles would say lis could not have been thereon the second date. She 1),ld fixed the date of the pcond night he spent with Sir Charles as the 7th of Decprober, 1882, and, therefore, she had failed to account how she spent the night: immediately following, in which the alleged familiarities took place. It would be necessary to inquire into the handwriting of two letters referred to by Mr. Crawford. His last point was as to Mrs. Rogerson's connection with the case. Mrs. Crawford said she confessed everything to her, and upon her advice broke off her connection with Sir Charles. Mrs. Rogerson would come and admit having had a confession from Mrs. Crawford, but. 8be would deny that she had ever acted, as alleged, as a kind of intermediary between Sir Charles and the respondent. He proposed to have the short- hand notes of the evidence read over, and would then place Mrs. Crawford in the box. Sir James Hannen Oh, not that. That must be left entirely to me. Sir Walter Phiilimore said he did not propose to call Sir Charles till Mrs. Crawford had given her evidence, subject to his lordship. The Judge The issue rests entirely with the Queen's Proctor. He must lay such evidence >efore the court as he thinks will establish his case. THE EVIDKNCE AT THB LAST TRIAL. Mr. Bargrave Deane tnen read the evidence taken at the last trial, and some correspondence between Mr. Crawford's solicitor and Mrs. Crawford as to her placing her statement in writing. Some were put in at the last trial, and some were new. In one of the letters Mrs. Crawford said, she was horribly frightened nt the idea of Sir Charles Dilke fighting the case, as it would so complicate it. There was also a letter in which the solicitor warned the respondent that it was alleged to be a conspiracy on her part and that of others against Sir Charles, And that she would have to meet that suggestion. SIR CHARLES DILKF. IN THE WITNES3- HOX. Sir Charles Wentvrorth Diike was the first wit- ness called. He said his family and that of Mr. Eustace Smith had been acquainted since 1838, and his brother married one of them, dyirg in 1381, JeaYing a widow and some children, of whom he was guardian. Mrs. Cra wrford was a vounger lister of Mrs. ASHTON "Dilke. After his first wife's ieath his grandmother kept house for him till December, 188G, when hp. died, among the visitors being the younger children of Mr. Eustace Smith, who had the run of the A great-uncle of his was in the habit of visiting him vparlv, and in 1883 WAS staying in the ]¡OU"P. H denied that, if he called on lrg. Crawford sonn AFTEY her marriage, he made LOVE to HER but HE doubted IF he did so call, as at that time he mucli in Paris, conducting COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS. HE could not remember S-Vily OR MRS. (>■>WORD at Sidney-placo in Febn,13.37,. HE "TTIPLM- ticaily denied having made AN ASSIGNATION witl, Mrs. Crawford to meet her som»wher<». flu knew the tenant of 65, WANEU-OTREAT, Madame de Soulary. who. with ITER SISTERS, WERE fnrmsrlr in the service OF his f-nni!Y. TL» had from time to time visited MADAME (1p ^ULARR probably twine A year. He NEVER took MR? CREW ford TO hr or any OTHER HOUSE, NOR did he meet her titer", On the 23".1 of FEBRUARY WAS dressed for breakfast SIT eleven: It WAS HIS invariable prac- tice to start FOR the T1"we;nl NPICP AT 1130. At that time his GREAT uncle WAS =RSRH'G with him. There was a Lf'v"e that DAR, which H" ATTENDED. He WAS also preoent. AT tilp IT of COMMON", and answered QUESTION?, SOME of which WERE new so that tho answers would have TO be rrp. pared that day. From amount: of Corre* apondence HO MUST have been at the Foreign Office BETNVP twelve, while between (HO Levee and the sitting of the House he could not possibly have GNNN 1,0 tho Tottenham Conrt-road. He dined at the Fiotisn of COMMONS that evening. On the 13tli of February, 1883, he attended a Cabinet meeting, and spoko at Kensington in the evening. NEITHER ON that, nieht, nor on the follow- ing did Mrs. Crawford come to his house and sleep. IT waa not true that Mrll. Crawford was in the habit, of going TO his HOUSE 1n the morning and passing tha time in his bedroom. She might have called at the house sometimes as an ordinary vishor. At this skagp theeoij»fc ndjonrnrd for luncheon, On the resumption after lunehenn, Sir Chavles pi lite continued his evidence, and lAid he was hardly ever at his own house after half- past eleven is the morning till night time. Sir Charles then gave evidence as to the internal arrangements of his house, the character of the furniture in the rooms, and the duties cf the ser- vants. Mrs. Crawford might have called on him on one or two mornings, but he nsver let hor in. It -was ? most amazing sutrment to say that he did so. Be never made an arrangement for her to meet him there. Sarah Grey was upper-houseiimid in his employ. He never instructed her to admit Mrs. Crawford or to dress her, for the respondent was never in the house under the Bircnmstancos stated Sarah had a sister Fanny, Vtao for a. very short tiuae was in his service- probably seven years ago. It was untrue that fanny was his mistress, or that, with Mrs. Craw- ford, she was in his bed. He did not know where •lie was now. she was married, bnt, having been married, she had disappeared, and her whereabouts ] could not be ascertained. Mrs. Rogerson was an old friend of his. He never told her of the alleged nIaûoa8 between Mra. Crawford and himself, nor: did he, in consequence, ask her to be kind to the respondent. He never recollected turning pale on meeting Mr. Crawford. On the day after the con- fession he met the petitioner, who, however, shook hands, and treated him as usual, and did not mention tbe confession. DENIAL OF THE ADULTERY. Have you ever committed adultery with Mrs. j Crawford:-Certainly not. ) EXAMINED BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. By Mr. Henry Matthews: He was at the trial before Mr. Justice Butt. He heard Mr. Crawford's evidence. Long before that he had heard details of the confession. He then believed Mrs. Craw- ford was in her sound mind, and he believed she made the confession in order to fix guilt upon a person agreed upon between her and others, as she was very near discovery. The others were the authors of the anonymous letters. He did not know who it was. He also thought Captain Forster was a party to getting up that story against him. At the rime of the iate trial he thought it was a deliberate conspiracy to deceive the court. Mrs. Crawford bad confessed to other people she hail com- mitted adultery with several people. The reasons his counsel assigned for not putting him into the box were not based on his instructions. He fully expected to be called, and up to the last his advisers were not agreed among themselves. He acted on the advice of his counsel. It was true there were acts in his life which he did not wish to be questioned on then. They came to an end eleven years ago. H", thought Mrs. Crawford's story so extraordinary as to carry refutation on the face of it. H,) lirst heard of the confession from Mrs. Kcgerson, but the details told him differed from those before the court. Two morn- ings later he went to Mrs. Ashton Dilke's, where he saw Mrs. Crawford. He did not urge on Mrs. Ashton Dilke that Mrs. Crawford should consent to a separation, quietly effected. He did not offer anything towards Mrs. Crawford's income. He was very angry at the foul charges. He could remember asking fur a written retraction. He had no retraction on paper in his hand. He did not tell her if she did not retract he would accuse her with other men. No doubt he threatened her with some sort of action. At that time he believed the conspiracy was existing. He did not ask Mrs. Crawford to sign a statement that she was hysterical. She might have promised that she would not go to Mr. Crawford's solicitor. She was despondent, and talked about jumping off a bridge. He did not hear from anybody of any anonymous letter making a charge against him of any misconduct with any lady. He heard of many anonymous letters about himself. Mrd. Rogerson did nor, tell him, You see your sin has found you out." Mrs. Rogerson, in the strongest, terms, would deny that. He had received many anonymous letters himself. He could not ascribe their authorship to anyone. He had seen a statement by Sarah Grey communi- cated to the Queen's Proctor. At frequent inter- vals from 1353 till 1870 she assisted her sister as his father's servant; and in 1875 she was in his service for a short time. Since her sister's death she had had £-+0 a year. He had not made her presents in addition. He never took any lady to 65, Warren-street. He had no recollection of ever having seen the back room occupied by Midnme Soulary. It was absolutely untrue that he had been there scores úf times with ladies. He did not remember a family named Heliier living in the parlour. Since tho commencement of the case he had heard that Fanny had lived there. He had never had in those years a mistress called Fanny. He had been told there was some mystery about where Fanny had been living in 1883 and 1884.. She disappeared about the last trial. Before that she was sent by his solicitor to his shooting box in Essex, as she had been attacked by detec- tives. She turned up after the trial, made a state- ment to his solicitors, and then disappeared again. Every week-day he fenced before breakfast, which he invariably had at eleven. He never went out before 11.30. and seldom later, except, on Saturdavs. He had no individual recollection of the 23rd of February as to where he went, but he well remembered his work wa unusually heavy that day. He had nothing in writing to show at what hour he reached the Foreign Office that day. He had no special recollection of Mrs. Crawford before her marriage. He did not think sho had ever come to his house by appointment. He had never told his footman to clean the windows, as a lady W:18 coming to see tue 110U!!9- that lady being Mrs. Crawford. In those vears there was never a Indy in his bedroom between eleven and twelve in the morning. He was in London on the 6th of May, 1882. Ho went to Mr. Earl's to luncheon irnmediatelvon leaving home. He hnd an engagement to meet his present wife at Mr. Earl's that day. It was the day of the Phoenix Park murder. If an engagement entered in his diary was not- kept he would cut out tho entry from his diary with a knifo or, perhaps, strike if. through with a pencil. On tho 7th of December, 1882, ha was in London, He had a meeting with Sir W. liarcourt that dilY. He did not take Mrs. Crawford home with hitn that even- ing. He looked on Mrs. Crawford as a member of his family, and when he spoke of her to her hus. band lie mentioned her by her Christian name. He thought Mrs. Crawford's object in calling on him was to induce him to secure a permanent position for her husband in any Scotch Govern* ment system. lie did not remember ever having written to Mrs. Crawford, He ft personal interview with Captain Forster lust year. Captain Forster was angry with hini for, as ha alleged, sending letters to tha War Office about him in order to blast his reputation. He challenged wit- ness to tight him. Witness treated the affair aa utterly ridiculous. He might have suggested that if he did not break olT his intrigue with Mre, Crawford it might injure his prospects, At this point the court adjourned till to-morrow (Saturday).

AMERICAN IRISH AND THE GENERAL…

THE BELFAST RIOTS,

A STRANGE POISONING CASE.

THE SERIOUS CH AUG IS AGAINST…

I A TROUBLESOME TRIBE OF GIPSIES…

| A CHELSEA ELOPEMENT PRE!…

CARDIFF GAS-LIGHT AND COKE…

THOMPSON AND SHACKELL (LIMITED).

CARDIFF BOAHD OF GUARDIANS

SHOCKING STABBING AFFRAY BETWEEN…

ALLEGED MURDER BY A STEPSON.

THE PROPOSED GENERAL HOSPITAL…

SHOCKING HEATH OF A DEAN.

A SOLICITOR SENT TO PENAL…

COLLISION BKTWEEN AN IUONCLAD…

INCREASE OF DUTY ON COAL BY…

EXCHEQUER RETURNS:

GLAMORGAN PIGEON CLUB, CARDIFF.

QUOIT MATCH AT BRIDGEND

LOCAL GAZETTE NEWS.

Advertising

CHESS.

liAMJq No, M,

CRICKET,

BELFAST AND LONDONDERRY PROCLAIMED.

TRADE REPORTS.

VOLUNTEER INTELLIGENCE.

-SUB-MASlxVS MINING ENGINEEPS.

CARDIFF RIFLE CLUB.

MERTHYR SHOOTING CLUB.

ROWING.

THE WEEK'S MARKETS.

IiMJAL COMMISSIONS*

[No title]

Family Notices

Advertising