THE DENTISTOUN CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 13 March 1925, Page 3

THE DENTISTOUN CASE

A SHREWD MOVE

,AUSTUAMAN AND N.Z. CAIIT.U ASSOCIATION (Received this day at 11.25 a.m.) LONDON, March 13.

There was a most amusing interlude to-day when a fashionably dressed woman began scanning the principals through opera glasses. She was sternly ordered to cease or leave the Court and the galsses fell to the floor with a clatter.

Kry/,or l.Dennistmiii’s .solicitor) cross-examined, stated that Deimistoun settled £IOO,OOO on .Lady Lamarvon at marriage, the interest whereon is payable to the husband or wile according to the trustee's discretion. A sum, „f eight thousand, bequeathed to Dennistoun by his lather, has been placed at witnesses’ disposal to ‘ meet the costs of the present case. Mr lleinie Williams: “Lady Carnarvon provided Dennistoun with £IOO,OOO which the dav before the marriage he tied up by a settlement. If plamtifl ■jets a verdict she could not touch that money.” Witness: “No.” Witness admitted that the whole o! the interest thereto was handed over from Lady Carnarvon to Dennistoun. Several letters from plaintiff convinced him that she was trying to extort. Witness explained that Lady Carnarvon desired to surround her husband with dignity and so provided him with £IOO.OOO. She was a lady of great wealth. Witness estimated that he had been paid between ten and

twelve thousand to meet the costs. Hr Realised that unless he placed on record the plea that the divorce agreement implies a, term of chastity plaintiff’s part lie would have been unable to give the names of the men with whom the plaintiff alleged to have misconducted herself. Detectives had been employed to watch her in L-t because her present chastity was considered a material issue to the case Once, on Lewis’s ady.ee she had a detective stopped and taken to police station where he had to explain himself. lie coukl not sav it tluee of four thousand had been spent on dotoJustice McCardie interposed that if Dennistoun thought this a blackmailing action he and his advisers would naturally take every step to prevent such an action. „ , Mr Hume Williams: “If the F.emh divorce was collusive ns you say, do you agree that the English re-marriage " ’"witness: “No. if it ~oc,’ * collusive divorce, in England a remairiage would not have imperilled it. Mr Hume Williams: “ If you settled the case it would have been a commonplace matter to stipulate no furthm .claims he made against Dennistoun. Witness: “I never contemplated n settlement when ’threatened It >o don’t do certain things something will he disclosed. You must sooner 01 Tim ° question of ndmissnbility of the evidence relating to P-t-d.vorce and misconduct was argued at length ani Mr Justice McCardie said he was not satisfied that it was admissahle on question of damages. The hearing was adjourned,