COSTLY ITEMS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 9 March 1925, Page 5

COSTLY ITEMS.

THE DENNISTOUN CASE. PLAINTIFF'S CAREER. PUBLIC GREATLY INTERESTED. BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION- COPVRIGHT. Received March 9, 9.25 a.m. LONDON, March 8. It is estimated that the Dennistoun case will cost £15,000, largely exceedmg the amount the wife claims, namely a little over £looo.—Sydney Sun. LONDON, March 7. Apart from the fact that some newspapers are publishing a page daily of the evidence in the case in which Mrs Dorothy Dennistoun is claiming £IOB9 from her former husband, Lieut.-Colonel lan Onslow Dennistoun, the sum allegedly representing loans ■ and moneys borrowed on hie behalf for the settlement of debts, the height of public interest is shown by the crowded state of the court. There was a long queue of women outside early this morning, many being seated on camp chairs reading novels. Mrs Dennistoun’s cross-examination and re-examination was completed. She had been in the box for 18 hours, but resolutely declined a chair, and found her chief support in a bottle of smelling salts. Sir Edward Marshall-Hall continued, a detailed investigation of her career.’ Plaintiff said she had not told Lady Carnarvon what a scoundrel her husband was, but disclosed most details of her life. She declared that her husband and she were nothing to each other after 1919, though they were still friendly. Sir E. Marshall-Hall: “Do you suggest that your husband ever deserted you?” Witness: “He was living with other women in Paris.” Sir E. Marshall-Hall: “I suggest that you deserted him.” Witness: “I don’t agree.” Sir E. Marshall-Hall: “You preferred a brilliant society life as Sir John Cowans’ mistress instead of living with your husband?” Witness: “My society life consisted of war nursing.” Mr Justice McCardle : ’ “Were you willing after 1919, to give up Sir John Cowans and live with your husband as his full wife?” Witness: “It was never suggested.” Mr Justice McCardle: “Were you willing or not?” Wit 1165 5: ‘‘l can’t say what I would have done if the situation had arisen.” Answering Sir E. Marshall-Hall, witness said it was untrue that she preferred a life apart when poyerty overtook her husband. It was also untrue that she lived at the Savoy Hotel, Paris, as the mistress of the Spaniard. Bolin, for a week in April. 1921. About the end of that month her husband entered into an agreement to orovide for her. She did not agree to the condition that in the divorce she should not disclose the indentity of Madame X, with whom her husband was entangled. Further questions concerned the companionship of Major Wevvedsky in Paris, Lisbon. Madrid and Barcelona. The witness explained that he and she were both dealers in antiques, and the visits were purely of a business nature. She had not a lover at Majorca. She knew a famous Madrid bull-fighter named Conare. but he was merely a personal friend. Her intimacies with men were limited to her husband, Sir John Cowans and Bolin, but not with Bolin till Sir John Cowans was dead. / It was a lie that she said Lady Car- / narvon would p/iy £IOO,OOO rather than that the case should begin. She had not approached anyone, regarding a settlement. The case was adjourned till Tuesday. The interesting admission was made hr Mrs Dennistoun during crossexamination that a Mr F. was willing to marry her. hut she had so far refused. Counsel indicated that Mr F. E financial adviser to the present Lord Carnarvon. v