IS BIGAMY A CRIME?

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 253, 21 July 1919, Page 2

IS BIGAMY A CRIME?

APPEAL COURT'S ANSWER AN ORDER SET ASIDE Tho- Court of Appeal (First and Second Divisions), specially authorised by Ortlcr-in-C'ouncil to hear argument in a case rosorved by the Chief Justice,, in respect to James Jackson, charged with bigamy, gavo its reserved judgment on Friday morning. , . Argument was heard- by tho Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, Mr. Justico Sim, Mr. Justice Stringer, and Mr. Justice HerdTho facts wero brieflly these: The Appeal Court, in tho case of Bex v. Lander, decided by a majority (the Chief Justico dissenting) that section 22-1 was ultra vires. Lander was married before joining tho Expeditionary Force, and later, while in Kngland and still a soldier, ho married a second time at Codford, bringing > Iris second wife back to New Zealand. The Court held that tho words "in any part of tho world;" which are contained in section 221 of the Crimes Act, VM, were ultra vires, and tho Court considered itself bound by the decision of the Privy Council in tho case of Jt'Leod v. Attorney-General of Sew South , Wales, lvliicJi referred to the interpretation of section 5i of tho New Soiilk Wales Crimes Act, which reads as follows:—"Whoever b.eing married marries another person during the life of tho former husband or wife, wheresoiiver such second marriage takes place, shall be liable to penal servitude for Bove.n years." Subsequently .James Jackson was indicted for bigamy, ho having on January 31, 1912, married one Martha White, then a spinster, at the Kegistry Wellington, and on January 1, liMi, ho iveut through a form of marriage with one Gladys. May Morris at tho Sacred' Heart .Basilica, Wellington. Jackson appeared before His Honour ■ the Chief Justice at tho list criminal sitting of the Supremo Court. Sir John Fincllay, K.C., who appeared for the prisoner, raised tho point that the indictment did not discloso any offence, and moved that it be quashed, relying on the decision ofßox v. Lander. His Honour upheld Hie contention, and in his judgment said: "it is one law—one definition of bigamy, and the Court of Appeal having held that this one indivisible law is invalid, I do not know what authority empowers me to amend it. The Statute is not so construed that I can strike out one part and let tho other part stand; it is not in two parts. His Honour quashed the indictmont, and the question reserved was whether tho indictment was rightly quashed, and, if not, whether a new trial-should be ordered on the indictment. . Tho Court, by a majority of. six to ono (tho Chief Justice dissenting) set aside the order of tho Supreme Court <yHashing tho indictment, and ordered a new trial of the accused on the (indictment. ' ' ■ . The majority decision, which was read by His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, stated that tlyi question was ono of construction, and that if tho words, "in any part of tho world" wore eliminated from section 224 thero was still .left a clear definition of bigamy which was a crime in Now Zealand, like forgerj ana other crimes in the Crimes Act. His Honour tho Chief Justico held that tho law could not bo eovored, and that tho Court had no power to review tho Lander caso in which the Appeal Court held that' section 22-1: was invalid. Ho doubted whether the Court had power to declare a law of New Zealand invalid oxcupt where it was repugnant to Imperial Acts affecting Now Zealand. He contended that section 221 was one definition of bigamy-one and indivisible. At tho hearing, Sir John Salmoiul, K.C., with him Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, appeared for tho Crown, and Sir John FirnUay, ' K.C., with him Mr. P. W. Jackson, for the accused.