THE DENISTOUN CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1925, Page 2

THE DENISTOUN CASE

IOatRAT.IAN AND N.Z. CARL* ASBOUIATIO!'

DEFENCE CLOSED. LONDON, March ”U. In the Denislouu ease, the defence case has closed. Mr Birkett (for the defence) submitted that there was no evidence to .substantiate a loan of ffilfi. Defendant’s alleged agreement to support plaintiff in lieu of alimony, could not be enforced at law. Mr Justice McCarcTie submitted ten points to tlie jury, including: (1) Whether there was an agreement constituting a legal bargain? (2) Was it a collusive bargain, connected with a collusive divorce? id) Had the agreement been fulfilled up to the time of the service of tinwrit ?

(1) If there was an agreement, and, assuming every defence fails, how much damage shall he awarded? (•j> Were the plaintiff’s payments, if any, loans or gifts?

Mr Birkett. on behalf of tlie- defendant, in the absence of Sir MarshallHall. through illness, addressed the jury. He admitted that Dennistoiin was as weak, vacillating,, and infatuated a man as the jury had ever seen. It was those traits in conjunction with the knowledge of his wife’s relations with General Cowans, that permitted this action to he brought in its present form. It was plainly blackmail. The plaintiff had used her misconduct as a means of extracting money, not only from her husband, hut from Lady Carnarvon. This was the lowest grade of unlorgiveahlc sin. The defendant might have been many tilings, hut lie was not a liar. The plaintiff was the dominating figure. She went from General Cowans to Bolin when the former was still alive. Mr Birkett asked: “Was there any preferment?” There was not. There was a story of General Cowans dying, cursing the woman, who had been heartless throughout. She also had liv'd with readiness, resource and ingenuity throughout. Only the testimony of a -proved liar supported the story of an agreement. What she claimed to have done with General Cowans for the sake of her husband was iust the one thing that a married woman would not do. The plaintiff, no doubt, imagined that there would lie a settlement of the case. Mas it not repugnant to morals, commonsense. and decency, to imagine that Ladv Carnarvon would give Dennistoun money to give to his divorced wife? That was one of the strongest arguments that an agreement had never been made. Dennistoun’s weakness exulaiued most things. He had been a loving, infatuated man, seeking to shield his wife from the results of her folly.

Mi- Justice McCardie remarked that he could not rcnvnnher a more difficult case ever put l>v a judge to a jury. The hearing was adjourned.