QUESTIONS FOR JURY

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 151, 23 March 1925, Page 9

QUESTIONS FOR JURY

THE DENNISTOUN CASE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENCE London, March 20. Hearing of the Dennistoun case was Continued to-day. Evidence for the defence was closed. Mr. Birkett, on behalf of defendant, submitted that there was no evidence to substantiate the story of a loan of £616 to defendant, and alleged that an agreement to support plaintiff in lieu of alimony could not be enforced at law.

The Judge (Mr. Justice McCardie submitted ten points to tlie jury, in eluding the following: (1) Whethei there was an agreement constituting a legal bargain; (2) was' it a collu sive bargain connected with a collusive divorce; (3) had the agreement if there was one. been fulfilled uj to the time of the service of the writ; (4) if there was an agreement and, 'assuming that every defence failed, ,how much damages should be awarded: (5) were the plaintiff’s payments, if any, loans or gifts/ Mr. Birkett, on behalf of defendant, in the absence of Sir Edward MarshallHall through illness, addressed „the jury. He admitted that Dennisfoun was as weak, vacillating and infatuated a man as ever a jury had seen. It was those traits in conjunction with the knowledge of his wife’s relations with Cowans that permitted the action to be brought in its present form. It was plainly blackmail. Plaintiff used her misconduct as a means of extracting money not only from her husband but from Lady Carnarvon. This was the lowest grade of unforgivable sin. Defendant might have been manv things, but he was not a liar. Plaintiff was the dominating figure. She went from Cowans to Bolin, when the former was still alive. Mr. Birkett asked: Was there any preferment? There was not. There was the story of Cowans dying and cursing a woman who' was heartless throughout. She also lied with readiness, resource and ingenuity throughout. Only the testimony of a proved liar supported the story of an agreement. What she claimed to have done with Cowans for the sake of her, husband was just one thing a mar-' tied woman would not do. Plaintiff, no doubt, imagined that there would be a settlement of the case. Was it not repugnant to morals, commonsense and decency to imagine that Lady Carnarvon would give Dennistoun money to give to his divorced wife. That was one of the strongest arguments that, an agreement was never made. ■ Dennistoun’s weakness explained most of the things. He had been a loving, infatuated man, seeking to shield his wife from the results of her folly. The Judge remarked that he could not remember a more difficult case ever put to Judge and jury. The case was adjourned.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.