UNMANLY MAN

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12096, 25 March 1925, Page 8

UNMANLY MAN

AGAINST GLEVER WOMAN COUNSEL’S SCATHING COMMENT ON DBNNISTOUN. “DISCREDITABLE,” SAYS JUDGE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, March 23. The hearing of the so-called Dennistoun case, in which Mrs Dorothy Dennistoun is suing her divorced husband, lan Onslow Dennistoun, now married to the widow of the late Earl of Carnarvon, for the return of £IOBB lent him on various occasions, was resumed. The court was so crowded with perfumed women that the atmosphere became unbearable, and Mr Justice AlcCardie ordered the windows to be opened. There were many tense moments, the most notable being Lady Carnarvon’s quiet protest: “It is a liet” when Sir Ellis Hume-Williams told the jury that the defence had been designed to frighten the plaintiff out of court. MUCK-RAKING. Counsel asked if the jury could understand the mentality of a man who’, now living in luxury, refused to pay £IOBS paid out by ms wife on his 'behalf, including tailor’s and club hills. The defendant, instead of repaying her out of money inherited from his. father, gave it to a solicitor. ' It was obvious that most of the £12.000 would be swallowed up in costs. Ijj was expended in scouring Europe and raking up everything detrimental to the plaintiff. The defence (said counsel) denied any agreement, yet ludicrously contended that it "implied that plaintiff should lead a chaste life. The defence said that it was a case of blackmail, .but he was more justified in saying that the - defence was dishonest and discreditable. Sir Ellis Hume-Williams extensively quoted from Dennistoun’s letters. The earlier letters, .said counsel, seemed to suggest that he wished her to continue her relationship with Cowans in j order that defendant might benefit- j therefrom. Could they believe his story that he could not interfere because his wife would not let him?

Counsel remarked that a plea of connivance. was permissible in French courts, and Dennistoun had good reasons for not defending _ the divorce case, including his own misconduct and also his tolerance of the relations of his wife with Cowans. ~— Dennistoun could always have settlo." tho case, but elected 1 to submit his wif-s to a terrible ordeal. JUDGE SUMS UP. Mr Justice McCardie, summing up, said that there could be no greater encouragement for bringing improper claims than the hope that cases with unpleasant details would -be Personally, he felt that the defend- 1 ant’s conduct in permitting his wife’s liaison with Cowans was gravely to be condemned, and had largely discredited him; but, when a man was guilty of such unmanliness and loss cf respect, it was a reason for weighing the facts with greater care. The plaintiff was one of the most adroit and ingenious witnesses he had seen, and, if she had decided to invent a claim against the defendant, then she would be one of the moat dangerous witnesses. His Honour said that he regarded the agreement as the vaguest he had ever seen. The plaintiff could not give the date or place where it was . made. The case was adjourned;