THE DENNISTOUN CASE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 18 March 1925, Page 5

THE DENNISTOUN CASE.

HUSBAND GIVES EVIDENCE

HIS WIFE’S CONDUCT

BY CABLiE—PRESS ASSOCIATION— GOP * RIGHT. LONDON, March 16. 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 his behalf for "the settlement of debts, was continued to-day. Dennistoun gave evidence to-day. He said he married the plaintiff in 1910, when their respective ages were 31 and 21. When he was 17 he ran away from Eton to America.

Dealing with the charge that plaintiff loved another within a few months of their marriage, the defendant said the man was Senhouse, whom plaintiff took to their home while 1 witness was absent on guard duty. At the time he did not realise that there was’anything in it till a brother officer disclosed something. Witness taxed her, and she admitted misconduct with Senhouse during 1911, “bufc it was not much use taking up any attitude because she was more dominating than I throughout.” Mr Justice McCardle: “Why did you not take a.strong stand?”

Witness: ‘‘Because I didn’t. I married against my father’s will. I could have divorced her in 1911, hut had a certain amount of pride. I didn’t wish my father to know.” . ' ’Later the witness said he heard that there was misconduct with Senhouse, who accompanied them to Scotland after witness returned from Jamaica. She said she had great difficulty in making up her mind whether to go away .with Senhouse, but. decided to stick to witness. He could not produce her letters because she asked that they be torn up. If he hacj preserved them she could not have his, letters, which did not in themselves present the real facts.

Sir John Cowans arranged an interview which upheld the Jamaica appointment with General Manning, after which Manning gave him a letter to Cowans, who appointed him to home duty till 1915, when, on his own initiative, he got an appointment at Gibraltar. It was not true that his wife told him that the general would arrange an appointment. It would mean that she and witness would not go on living together. Witness had no idea that there was anything beyond ordinary .friendship, or that there was any arrangement between the plaintiff and Cowans. Describing an incident at the Ritz Hotel at Paris, witness said the plaintiff was annoyed because Cowans booked her room adjoining his, in consequence of which she got a „ double room further away. It was untrue that he was aware that she was going to commit impropriety with Cowans. Later she wrote from Paris making a certain statement blaming him, also saying that she did it for his sake. Up to that time he was unaware that there had been anything between .her and Cowans.' “T loved her and continued forgiving her,” said Dennistoun. “I probably would now. I crave way to her in everything.” He never suggested breaking off relations with Cowans. He might jn«t as well have talked to the wall. She implied that she loved Cowans and was going to live with him, not with witness. It was not true that he sold her to Cowans. He denied that he had ever borrowed from plaintiff. • .