“INFATUATED MAN”

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12094, 23 March 1925, Page 8

“INFATUATED MAN”

DEFENCE OF DENNISTOUM COUNSEL CALLS PLAINTIFF AN INGENIOUS LIAR. POINTS FOR THE JURY. By Telegraph.—Prees Assn.—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON. March 20. The hearing of the Dennistoun case was continued to-day. After all the evidence for the defence had been heard. Mr Birkett, on behalf of the defendant, submitted that there was no ovidnece to substantiate the story of a loan of £616 to the defendant, and alleged that an agreement to support plaintiff in iieu of alimony could not be enforced at law. Air Justice McCnrdie submitted 10 points to the jury, including the following : (1) Was there an agreement constituting a legal bargain? (2) Was it a collusive bargain connected with a collusive divorce? (3) Had the agreement, if there was one, been fulfilled up to the time of the service of :he writ? (4) If there was an agreement, and assuming that every defence failed’, how much damages should be awarded ? (5) Were the nlaintiff’s payments, if any, loans or gifts? “PLAINLY BLACKMAIL." Mr Birkett, in the absence of Sir Edward Marshall-Hall through illness, addressed the jury. He admitted that Dennistoun was as weak, vacillating, infatuated & man as ever a jury had seen. It was those traits, in conjunction with the knowledge of his wife’s relations with Cowans, that permitted the action to be Drought in its present form. It was plainly blackmail. The plaintiff used her misconduct as a means of extracting monny not only from her husband, but from Lady Carnarvon. This was the lowest grade of unforgiveable sin. The defendant, said counsel, might have been many things, but he was not a liar. The plaintiff was the dominating figure. She went Irom Cowans to Bolin, when the former was still alive. Mr Birkett asked: Was there any preferment? There was not. There was the 6tory of Cowans dying and cursing a woman who was heartless throughout. She also lied with readiness, resource, and ingsnuity throughout. Only the testimony of a proved liar supported the story of an agreement. THE ONE IMPOSSIBLE THING. What Mrs Dennistoun claimed to have done with Cowans for the sake of her husband was just one thing a married woman would not do. Plaintiff, no doubt, imagined that there would be a settlement of the case. Was it not repugnant to morals, commonsense, and decency to imagine that Lady Carnarvon would give Dennißtoun money to give to his divorced wife? That was one of the strongest arguments that an agreement was never made. Dennistoun’s weakness explained most of the things. He hacTheen a loving, infatuated man, seeking to shield his wife from the results of her folly. The Judge remarked that he could not remember a more difficult case ever put to Judge and jury. The case was adjourned.