A SORDID CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 March 1925, Page 1

A SORDID CASE.

AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION FURTHER EVIDENCE. LONDON, March 7. Apart from the fact that some of the newspapers are publishing a full page each day of the evidence in the Deiinistoun ease (in which Mrs Dennistoun claims CIOS!) from heir former husband) the height of public interest is shown by the crowded state of the Court. There is a long queue of women outside the Court early in the ice ruing, many being seated in camp ch. irs, reading novels.

Mrs Deiinistouii’s cross examination and re-examination have been completed. She has been in the box for 18 hours. She resolutely declined a chair and found her chief support in a bottle of smelling salts.

Sir Marshal-Hall continued his detailed investigation of her career.

The plaintiff said that she had not told Lady Carnarvon (who married Dennistoun alter his divorce) what a scoundrel her husband was, hut she disclosed most of the details of her own life.

Mrs Deiinistoun declared that her husband and silo had been nothing to each other after 1019, though they still remained friendly. Sir Marshall Hall: Do you suggest that your husband ever deserted you? Witness: lie was living with other women in Paris. Sir .Marshal Hall: I suggest that you deserted him ? Witness: I don’t agree. Sir Marshall Hall: You preferred a •brilliant society life as General Cowan's mistress, instead of living with your husband. Witness: My society life consisted of war nursing. Justice McCardic: Were you willing after 1910, to give up General Cowans and live with your husband as his full wife? Witness: It was never suggested. Justice ALCanlic: Were you willing or not?

Witness: T can’t say what I would have done, if that situation had arisen.

Answering Sir Marshall Hall, witness said it was untrue that she preferred a life apart when poverty overtook her husband. It was also untrue that she had lived at the Savoy Hotel in Paris as Bolin’s mistress for a week, in April of 1921. About the end of that month, her husband enteired into an agreement to provide for her. She did not agree to a condition in their divorce that she should not disclose the identity of Madame “X ” with whom her husband was entangled.

Further questions concerned the companionship of Major Woyvodsky in Paris, Lisbon, Madrid, and Biyreelona. Witness explained that he and she were both dealers in antiques. The visits were purely of a business nature. She had not a lover at Majorca. She knew a famous Madrid hull fighter named Cenare. He was merely a personal friend. Her intimacy with men wore limited to her husband, General Cowans and Bolin, hut there was not intimacy with Bolin till General Cowans was (lead. It was a he that she had said that Lady Carnarvon would pay C 100,000 rather than that . this ease should begin. She had not approached anvono regarding a settlement. The case was adjourned till ’Tuesday. An interesting admission was made by Mys Deiinistoun during cross examination. that Mr “ I', was willing to many her, lmt that, she, so tai, had refused him. Counsel indicated that Mr “ F.” is financial adviser to the present Lord Carnarvon.