MALICIOUS MOTIVES ?

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12093, 21 March 1925, Page 5

MALICIOUS MOTIVES ?

MRS RENNISTOUN'S CLAIM “NONE COULD RESIST HEIR,” SAYS LAJ)Y CARNARVON. DENNISTOUN A POOL. By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, March 19. Angry and bitter exchanges marked defendant’s cross-examination in what is now known as the Dennistoun case. Defendant frequently thumped the table in emphasis of indignant answers. Sir Ellis Hume-Williams: Didn’t you agree to support your wife if in apposition to do so? Witness: Surely a man can write to his wife, and he can’t help it if that letter is maliciously used? Defendant denied that there was anr agreement between him and plaintiff. He told her he would help in all ways humanly possible, but he could only draw out money with Lady Carnarvon’s acquiescence. The whole case was malioe on plaintiff’s part in order to show him up before his present wife, who, before Lord Carnarvon’s death, gave witness £20,000 and also furnished his flat for him. “ANY DIGNITY LEUTT?” Sir Ellis Hume-Williams: Eady Carnarvon’s idea in settling £IOO,OOO on you at the time of your marriage to her was to invest you with dignity. Do you think that when you received £20,000 and a flat from another man’s wife you had any dignity left? Witness heatedly shouted: I won’t discuss it with you. Ask Lady Carnarvon herself. Sir Ellis Hume-Williams: I am not suggesting immorality between you and Lady Carnarvon. Witness (jumping to his feet): My Lord, it is a most unfair statement. It is pure blackmail. Mr Justice McCardie ruled the question permissible, but witness again ’-refused to discuss the question of dignity. He admitted that he spent £14,000 in 1922, and when counsel inquired about Lady Carnarvon’s control of his account, Dennistoun retorted: “This ‘nosey-Parker 1 business ia quite Unnecessary.” Mr Justice McCn.'die': Several times you’ve replied offensively and discourteously. Witness: I am sorry; but I am feeling seedy. Continuing, Dennistoun said that between >M)ay, 1922, till the account was closed in January, 1924, he paid in £106,234. His balance of £51,000 was drawn out after service of the writ, and was paid over to his present wife. I ANOTHER MAN. 'Re-examined,' Dennistoun said that Mr “F.” was named Frost, with whom it was understood his wife has been living. Frost, at the instance of plaintiff, became one of the trustees of their marriage settlement. Witness believed in the truth of all his charges against his . wife. He believed 1 “she was out to marry most of them.” The object of the litigation was to clear up finally any claim against him. Witness declared it was a conspiracy fo obtain money by intimidation, and it was wholly untrue fhat he acquiesced in her associations with Cowans. If he had assaulted Cowans he would have been court-martialled. His wife would, not have listened to a threat of divorce. PRESENT WIFE S EVIDENCE. Lady Carnarvon gave evidence that Mrs Dennistoun was attractive to the last degree when she liked.’ and none cduld resist her charm. She used to describe Dennistoun as sweet but. hopelessly weak and “a wash-out.” She never told her (Lady Carnarvon) that Dennistoun connived at the Cowans affair in order to gain preferment. Witness helped Dennistoun financially because he befriended her when she was ill and also because he was poor and hungry. The charges against him were most wicked and abominable, as he had been a tool in plaintiff’s hands.