CHARGE OF BIGAMY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 111, 4 February 1919, Page 6

CHARGE OF BIGAMY

CASE AT THE SUPREME COURT

A LEGAL POINT

At ' the Supreme Court yesterday Walter Lander was charged that while already married he did, at Ccdford, England, on October 15, 1917, go, through a form of marriage with Hilda May Rouse, spinster, thereby committing biyimy.

Mr. H,. F. O'Lenry appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. '

Mr. James G. Gregory was foreman of Hie jury. Mr. Macasscy, in opening, stated that the accused was married to Mary finehardson, at Ahaura, on the West Coast, on 1 'August 9, 1912. He later enlisted with the New Zealand Forces, and went abroad. In October, 1917, he went through a form of marriage at St. Mary's Cluircl), Codford, and subsequently returned to NewZealand with Hilda May Rouse, accused's first wife'being still alive. Mr. Mncassey pointed out that the case involved a very important law point na to whether a prosecution could be instituted in regard to an offence of this nature committed in any other part of the world. The point could be dealt with later on.

Formal. evidence was given by W. W. Cook, Registrar of Births, Deaths, and -Marriages, Wellington, also Elizabeth C,Richard, Registrar at Ahaura. Hilda May Rouse said she knew the accused, and wa> married to him at Codford. She was a spinster at. the 'time, and the accused represented himself to her as a single man. She did not know he had been previously married until she came to New Zealand.

H. F. von Haast, barrister and solicitor, said he was acquainted with the marriage laws of and declared that the marriage between accused' and Hilda May Roupe was binding. Plain-clothes Constable Russell said that wh<"> arrested accused admitted that he was the person whose name appeared on the marriage certificate. The accused also stated that : he understood that his wife had already been married when he married her, as she went under so many different names. He further said he enli'tpd as a single man.'

Mr. O'Leary said (here was no dispute rip to the facts, and were the question of jurisdiction not involved a idea of tni'lty would have been entered. He nelnid His Honour to reserve that point of law.

His Honour directed the jury to find the prisoner guilty, jointing but that although he niHit be Tuiltr on the rfacis lie might not be .guilty at law. . - The jury bronsht in a verdict of guillv. ■' The accused was admitted to bnil in his'own recognisance of .PSO conditionally on his reporting daily to the, police, pending argument on the law point- involved.