SOME UNUSUAL FEATURES IN BIGAMY CHARGE

Chronicle (Levin), 24 July 1947, Page 6

SOME UNUSUAL FEATURES IN BIGAMY CHARGE

Some unusual features were associated wilh a charge'of bigamy preferred against Winifred Margaret Hopson in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North yesterday. The heaTing was a short one. ~ Only two witnesses were called for the prosecution; none was ealled for the defence. The jury retired at 11.40 a.m. and returned at 2.45 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. Mr. Justice Fair ordered that the aecused should be discharged from custody. Aceused married Harry Hopson in England in 1024, and separated from him after four years. She had come to New Zealand to live with her parents. Ten years ago she had met Alfred John Firth at Te Puke. Because they could not get married they had lived together as man and wife, and a child was born in 1941. Accused last heard from her husband in 1940 when she had received a letter from him. She had subsequently written to him and -receiving no reply had thought he had been killed in the air raids on Engiand. In 1946 accused and Firth went to. Auckland. They had consulted the Registrar of Marriages there and taken legal advice. As a result of what they were told they went through a form of marriage in the Begistry Office. Firth in evidence said that aceused had been a good wife and a good mother to the child. If their marriage in Auckland was void he was still anxious to marry her. The complaint to the police regarding accused 's previous marriage was none of his doing. He lcnew nothing of the letter received by accused from her husbaud iu 1940. Detective-Sergeant J. G. Long produced the letter written by Hopson to his wife in 1940. When he interviewed accused she had said she had received the letter from her husband abont "eight or nine years ago." In his opinio'n she honestly believed that such a period had elapsed since she received the letter. In his summing up Mr. Justice Fair said it might be wondered why such a case had been brought to court. It might be regarded as only a technical olfence against the law, without any nioral blame attaching to the woman. However, it was necessary for the police to bring such cases before the court. If it were left to the discretion of the police as to wliether such persons were to be prosecuted, the police would be placed in au intolerable position. Human nature being what it was errors were bound to occur and an altogether too heavy burden would fall on the shoulders of the police. He paid a tribute to the fairness of the evidence given by Detective-Sergeant Long. The jury might consider that a eonvictron on a technical otfence was necessary but that accused had sulfered sufficient punishmeut in the ordeal of the trial. In such a case tliey could add a rider recommending that the utmost leniency of the court should be cxtended to her. It was a defence for accused if the jury decided that she honestly aud reasonably believed that her husband had been killed, or that seven years liad elapsed since she last- heard or received,, any maintena.pce frqni him. A verdict as stated' was: returned. , Mr. A. M, Ongleyv.,repyesented aq-. 'ifcuaed/'&nd Mr: H. fB, Ej^o^er cpnductecl tlie pr.osecutioh. | Y P*