LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1796, 8 July 1913, Page 7

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL. THE MARRIAGE OF HARRY FORD. RULING TO A JURY. ARGUMENT ON BIGAMY CHARGE. A case reserved, by Mr. Justice Cooper under Section 442 of the Crimes Act, 1908, came before the Ccart of Appeal yesterday, when the Be^'ih, was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. The case arose out of tho trial of Harry Ford, who had been oharged with bigamy at the criminal sessions of tho Supremo Court in Auckland on May 12 last. It was then alleged that, on or about August 15, 1012, Harry Ford (being then lawfully married to. Beatrico Newton) went through the form of marriage with one Kathleen Kelly. Tho iirst marriage Was alleged to have taken place in New South Wales, and tho question for the Court was. whether tho Crown had proved the validity of that marriage? Clergyman and His Marriage Entries. As'evidence of the alleged marriage of Ford with Beatrico Newton, the Crown called Richard Heffernan, who stated that ha was a Church of England clergyman, and that, in ISOB, lio was officiating in St. Paul's Church, Canterbury, near Sydney. He produced a marriage register, which contained on entry under No. 22, purporting to be au entry of a marriago. of Harry Ford, barman, Sydney, and Beatrico Newton, tailoress, Redfern. "Each, page of. tho register contains but two entries," 6aid Mr. Justice Cooper, in 6tating the case for tho Court of Appeal. "No. 21—the other entry on the page containing entry No. 22—purports to be of a marriage' solemnised' by. Heffernan at St. Paul's'Churdh, on October 26, 1907. Entries Nos. 23, 24, 25, _ and 26 are all ot marriages purporting to have been solemnised by Heffernan in the same clulrch in the months of November and December, 1907. Entries Nos. 27, 28, 29, and 30 are of marriages purporting to 'have been solemnised by Heffernan in the same church in January and February, 1908. Entry No. 30 purports to be a marriage solemnised on February 12, 1908, tho same day as that stated in entry No. 22. Heffevnan's explanation is that he found a blank space after entry No. 21, and ho filled it up on February 12, 1908. lie states that in 1907 and 1908 ho was celebrating marriages under an arrangement made with Dr. Zillman, a marriagebroker, Sydney, and that marriage No. 22 was one of tlieso marriages. Hoffernan has no recollection of the parties. . . . He produced a document purporting to be a true copy of an entry in a register ot marriages Kept at the Registrar-General s Office, Sydney. ... It contains the particulars stated in entry No. 22. . . . The Crown relied on Heffernan's evidence, and tho productions of the documents I have referred to, as sufficient evidence that a valid marriage had been solemnised between two persons named respectively Harry Ford and Beatrice Newton. . . . The only other evidence adduced by the Crown, "bearing on the question of the. alleged first marriage, was that of Detective Cox, of an admission made by tho accused on February 4, 1913. The marriage of the accused with Kathleen Kelly on August 15, 1912, at St. Patrick's Cathedral, Auckland, was duly proved." At the close of the case for the Crown, counsel for the acoused submitted that there was no evidence of the .alleged marTiage of the accused with tlie'! person described in the certificates (produced by Heffernan) as Beatrico Newton. . ~

The Original Finding. •" f After hearing the Crown Prosecutor, his Honour ruled:—(l) That upon a prosecution tor bigamy the alleged first marriage , must"be strictly proved; (2) that there ■ ivas no evidence that the marriage refer- ] Ted to'by Heffeman had been solemnised 1 according to the law of New South Wales, and that this proof was essential; (3) that there was no evidence at all of the identity of the accused with the Harry ' \Ford mentioned in the certificates; (4) that the production of the certificate .No. 22 was not evidence of a valid marriage, and the copy certificate produced was not evidence as an official document; (5) that the similarity of the names was not evidence identifying either of the parties with the Harry Ford and Beatrice Nowton mentioned in the certificates; (6) that there was no evidence Whatever of cohabitation; (7) that the admission of the accused made to Detective Cox was no evidence of cohabitation . . .; and (8) that the admission was not evidence that the parties had been validly married. His Honour held that there was therefore no evidence to go to the jury upon which the lury could properly find that there had been a valid marriage between Harry Ford and Beatrice Newton. The jury, in accordance with a direction of the learned .Tudge, returned a verdict of "Not guilty," and the prisoner was dis-" charged. Prasant Point for the Court. The Crown Prosecutor then applied to the Court to reserve for the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question whether his Honour's rulipg and direction was right in point of law. The case was accordingly reserved, and it came on for argument yesterday. Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Grown Law Office, appeared for the Crown, while Mr. E. H. Northcroft, of Hamilton, appeared for Ford. Argument had not concluded .last evening when the Court' adjoined Until 10.30 a.m. to-day. WANGANUI CASE. ' Argument was heard yesterday by the Court of Appeal "In the Wanganui cast, M'Gregor v. Fraser, in whicih certain questions of law had been removed from the Supreme Court for argument. . Mr. " H. D. Bell. K.C., with Mr. W. J. Treadwell, of Wanganui, . appeared for tho , plaintiff, while Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. Longhnan, of Palmerston North, appeared for the defendant. The Court reserved decision, MAGISTRATE'S COURT. "SATURDAY NIGHT." CHINESE & TIIE FOOTBALLERS. Several well-known Wellington Rugby footballers appeared in a case-in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Mr. W. G. Riddoll, 5.51., was on the Bench. In these proceedings, Alexander Gilchrist, a footballer, was charged (and acquitted) with having assaulted On Lee, a Chinese fruiterer, who keeps a shop in Cuba Street. Tho occurrence took place just beforo midnight on Saturday, May 31. On Leo, the Chinese, who was said to have been assaulted, deposed that he was putting up his shutters when a man who was passing with a small number of others stepped tip to him and struck him on tho left nrm. Tilie man immediately tan away, and On Leo did not think that he could liow rccognise him. He saw Constable Sheahon there just after the occurrence. Constable Sheahon gave evidence to tho effect that he saw Gilchrist in company ' with four or five men, who were creating a disturbance. Ho was going over to caution them when ho saw Gilchrist cross the road and strike On Lee. Mr. T. Neave (counsel for Gilchrist): You are absolutely certain as to the identity of the man? Witness: Yea. How far nway were you?— Two or throo chains." Which of these two men (Gilchrist and 'A. E. Thomas, who were sitting together) is' the one?—"Tho one nearest to you" (Gilchrist). . Are yon certain? Have another good look at him!—" Well, I could not swear to it now. I could have sworn at the time. ... I could not say now what colour his clothes were." Robert Paton ard William Bell were then asked U> stand. "Now," naked Mr. Neave of the witp/KM, "which of the four was it. -

Witness: I still think that it is the one sitting nearest you. Mr. Neavo: Yes, of course, you saw him 6tand up when tho case was called. The Chinaman says lie cannot swear to the man, and you say that you cannot. _ Witness: Tho Clianaman identified him at the limo. Mr. Neave: And now neither of you will swear.

Witness: It is a matter of a v/<onth ago. , Inspector Hendroy (who conducted tha case for tho. prosecution): Have you any doubt whatovor tlmt tho man who gave you the namo of Alex. Gilchrist, and whom you took back to see the Chinaman, is the man who committed the assault? Witness: No doubt whatever. In the course of his evidence, the defendant, Alexander Gilchrist, stated that the mon who were with him were Thomas, Paton, Bell, and Duncan. One party crossed the roadi as they walked along Cuba Street and spoke to the Chinaman. Defendant had never m his lit# interfered with a Chinaman. Inspector Hendrev asked whion one or the party crossed the road and went over to the Chinaman. Mr. Neavo: Tell the inspector. Gilchrist: Thomas wont over. , This clossd the case against Gilchrist. The Magistrate dismissed the information, remarking that neither the constable nor the Chinaman could now swear that Gilchrist was the nifin who came into contact with On. Lee- , I su Jr prised," 'added his Worship, at their. not being able to identify one out of several somewhat alike." Inspector Hendrey: I ask that Thomas be charged now with the offence. Thomas was charged. He pleaded not guilty, and then deposed that he crossed the road and asked the Chinaman if he would oblige him with o packet or cigarettes. Tho Chinaman was coming through the doorway with a. shutter in his arms, and bumped into him (Thomas). The Chinaman complaine<l somewhat, but there was no blow struck. Edward Elliott, who said that he was a complete stranger to Gilchrist. Thomas, find the others, and that he had not been with them on the night in question, was called. : He stated that he saw the incident in tho doorway, and that no blow was struck. Tho Chinaman had_ jostled Thomas—"sort of bumped into him with the shutter." 1 William Bell deposed that ho saw nothing in the nature of a blow struck. Thomas and On Lee "seemed to come together in the doorway." •Ho was surprised when the constable hailed him. Robert Paton stated that he did not see any assault committed. His Worship said that .there peomed to have been some interference with On Lee, though the matter was not a serious one. He would dismiss tho information against Thomas on tho payment by him of the interpreter's fee (10s. Gd.).

ROYAL TIGER HOTEL. Margaret M'lntosh, licensee of the Royal Tiger Hotel, was charged with having opened her premises for the sale of liquor on Sunday, Juno 22, and with having sold liquor to one Michael O'Brien. Charges were also made against Michael O'Brien and John Phipps of having been unlawfully on the premises on that Sunday. Polico-Sergeant M'Crorie and Constable Sheabon deposed that they had found O'Brien and Phipps in the hotel at about 7 p.m., and that O'Brien had' a bottle of beer in his pocket. _ The defence' was that Phipps was employed on the premises, and that O'Brien had gone there to inquire about his child, who was sick and in oliarge of Mrs. M'lntosh's dauglitor at Ngaio. Tho bottle of beer was one which had been paid for tin Saturday evening and left for O'Brien to call for.

Mrs. O'Brien stated in the witness bos that Mrs. M'lntosh had been exceptionally kind to hier and her family in times of trouble, and that recently, while O'Brien wafi disabled, Mrs. M'lntosh had given her work and looked after her child. His Worship dismissed the charges against Mrs. M'lntosh, fined O'Brien £1, and adjourned the case against Pliipps for a week. MAN & TIN TRUNK. John Mathsson, who, on Saturday, was remanded for sentence on a charge of his having stolen. a trunk, and contents (valued at .£l9) from the steamer Maitai, Was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. The property belonged, to Elizabeth .Mosley, who had booked a passage by the Maitai to Lyttelton. MISCELLANEOUS CASES. For having importuned in,public places, Lcnora Parker was sent to gaol for one month, and Mary Johnson and Cass Stanley were each sent to the Salvation Army Home for six months.

Isabella May Jessop, who was deemed to be idle and disorderly because she associated with disreputable people, was sentenced to throe months' imprisonment.

Samuel Williams was fined £i for having interfered with a police constable who was making an arrest. James Young was sentenced to on# month's imprisonment for having deserted from the steamer Delphic. For insobriety, Bruce M'Landers and Thomas Goodman were each fined 10s.

Archibald M'Naughton was fined .£3 for having; broken a prohibition order. An application by Walter Smart for a pawnbroker's license was. graated.