DENNISTOUN CASE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 65, 19 March 1925, Page 6

DENNISTOUN CASE

EVIDENCE OF HUSBAND,

UOSTRALUS-NEW ZEALAND CABLE iSSOCUriOS.) (Received 19th March, 2 p.m.)

LONDON, 18th March. Hearing of the Dennistovm case was resumed before Mr. Justice M'Curdie. On resuming his evidence the defendant, lan Dennistoun, said that he would have fought a Scottish divorce. He and his wife signed an agreement that she would not take any of his father's gift of £10,000, if defendant refrained from action in Scotland. Concerninij the Paris divorce, he intimated. that he did not intend again living with his wife, who later supplied a draft letter, which witness copied, admitting French domicile.

Sir Edward Marshall Hall interposed that he had come to the conclusion that it was useless to challenge the validity of the divorce, since the admission of domicile would give a French Court jurisdiction.

The defendant denied that he had promised to support plaintiff; he merely offered help' when he could. Beyond his small pension and his father's money he had no resources beyond what Lady Carnarvon provided. ■. Lady Carnarvon had permitted him to give plaintiff £600 in presents. There was no question of his paying back. No claim had ever been made before he married Lady Carnarvon!

Sir Ellis Hume-Williams then began a searching cross-examination of the witness, who admitted that the plaintiff had paid his tailor's and club* Dills. He did not propose in the circumstances to pay back a penny. He admitted that the Jamaican appointment and tl.e late ones up to. the appointment to the Supreme War. Council were duo to .General Cowana's influence. He had no ' idea that she was going to commit misconduct with Cowans or going to do so for witness's sake. When the witness wrote that he was ashamed of himself, it was because she had written him saying that she had done it for his sake. He despised himself because he could" not stop her.

Witness said that he would have despised himself if her story was true that he assented to her misconduct with the man responsible for his promotion, but his contention was that she gave' herself to Cowans for the sake of pleasure. When witness told her hot to uo further, it meant that she was to leave Cowans, and accompany witness elsewhere. He acknowledged that he had acted weakly. She was. the dominant figure, and he wasn't going to reveal her misconduct. What else could he have done in the circumstances? ■

' Sir E. Hume-Williams : "I'll tell you. You could have threatened her with.divorce. You could have gone to London and assaulted Cowans and to hell with your career."

Mr. Justice M'Cardie: "I am afraid, Sir Ellis, that is going a little beyond the bounds of forensic necessity." The defendant explains:! that he had not refused Cowans's appointments because he desired to shield the name of his wife, who would not have let 'him tell Cowans of such a thing. Sir E. Hume-Williams: "Why should you advise her how to keep Cowans?" Witness: "Because I didn't want her to live with anyone who came along. I would much sooner she lived with one than bulf-a-dozen."

Witness heatedly denied tbat he approved of his wife's efforts to ensure his promotion. He admitted relations for two years with a foreign woman in Paris, but he had not let his wife knqwj \