THE DENNISTOUN CASE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 13 March 1925, Page 7

THE DENNISTOUN CASE.

FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE

EMPLOYMENT OF DETECTIVES

UY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT Received March 13, 11.35 a.m LONDON, Alareh 12.

There was a most amusing interlude at the Dennistoun case to-day. A fashionably dressed woman in the body of the' court 'began scanning the- principals with a. pair of opera glasses. Bhe was .sternly-'ordered to cease, or to leave the court, and the glasses fell to the floor with, a clatter. Air. Fryzer, Dennistoun’» solicitor, under cross-examination, stated that Dennistoun settled £IOO,OOO on, Lady Carnarvon at their marriage, interest whereon was payable to the husband or wife according to the trustee’s discretion, The sum of £BOOO bequeath-, ed to Dennisitoun. by his father, had been placed at the disposal of witness to meet the costs of the, present case. Air. Hume Williams: “Lady Carnarvon. provides Dennistoun with £IOO,OOO which, the day before the marriage, he ties up> by a .settlement. If the plaintiff gets the verdict could not touch, that money?” Witness: “No.” Witness admitted that the whole interest the-reon was handed oyer to Lady Carnarvon, not to Dennistoun Several letters from the plaintiff convinced him. that she was trying extortion, Witness, explained that Lady Carnarvon desired to surround her husband with dignity, so provided hiiri with £100,000: She wa« a lady of great wealth. Witness estimated that he had been, paid between £IO,OOO tnd £12,000 to met costs. He realised that unless he placed on record the plea that the divorce agreement implies the terms of chastity on the plaintiff’s pant, he would .have been unable to; give the names of the men with whom the plaintiff was alleged to have misconducted 1 herself. Defectives had been employed to watch her in 1924, because, her present chastity was considered to be a material issue to the case. Once, on the advice of Lewis, he had the detective stopped and taken to the police station, where he had. to explain himself. He could not say if £3OOO or £4OOO had been spent in detectives. Mr. Justice McOardie i interposed by saying ' that if Dennistoun, thought this was a blackmailing action, lie, and hi® advisers: would naturally take every step to prevent such action. ■ Air. Hume Williams: “If the French divorce was collusive, as you say, do you agree that the English remarriage is in peril?” Witness: “No; if it had been a collusive divorce in England, remarriage would not have imperilled it. ’. Air. Hume Williams: “If .you settled the ease it would, have been a commonplace matter to stipulate that no further claims should be made against Dennistoun. ’ ’ Witness: “I never contemplated a settlement. When threatened that if you. don’t do certain things, something will be disclosed, you must sooner or later face the issue. The question! of admissibility of evidence relating to post-divorce misconduct was argued at length. Justice McOardie said .he was not satisfied it was admissible on the question, of damages. The hearing was adjourned.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.