MYSTERIOUS BURIAL

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 278, 18 August 1921, Page 4

MYSTERIOUS BURIAL

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY By Telegraph—Press Association." Auckland, August 17. An extraordinary story was told at the Supremo Court to-day disclosing some peculiar circumstances surrounding the burial of an old woman who died at Tauranga a short time ago. The husband, Edward Mortimer Gillam Maurice, was charged with having made a false statement to tho local Registrar of Deaths regarding the supposed witness of the burial which the widower admitted. Counsel for the prisoner said Maurice was an ignorant man and had buugled the instructions given to him by the registrar. He had failed to understand what ho was told, and in completing the death certificate subsequent to tho funeral got a man to sign the document as having witnessed the burial. At a later stage Maurice had declared to the registrar and other officers that the man had, seen the burial as a matter of fact. The "witness” had been in tho cemetery prior to the funeral and had seen an open grave and afterwards had seen a closed grave. The probation officer’s report was in prisoner's favour. Maurice had no previous convictions, and counsel thought tho Court should take into consideration the fact that the accused had actually been in custody for the last twelve days. His Honour; I notice he conducted tho funeral himself. That might mean poverty.

Counsel: My instructions are that he desired to save undertaker's expenses. The Crown Prosecutor said it might have been on account of poverty or it might have been on account of pure callousness.

It appeared that when prisoner was informed that a death certificate was required ho demurred at first because <sf the distance ho would have to fetch a doctor. He arrived at the cemetery with tho coffin but without a clergyman, and no burial service was read, and. there were no witnesses other than himself. The coffin was simply put into the grave and covered up. Afterwards ho found ho had no clergyman to certify .to the burial, and as he had to have witnesses ho procured the signatures of two persons whom he found there. One of them had actually wanted to attend the funeral, but when he asked the prisoner the time of burial Maurice had replied that he did not know as he was busy with the creamery. That had a bear, ing on his attitude of mind ns to whether it was a case of pure ignorance or whether defendant simply did not care. His Honour said there were no circumstances showing the object for concealment. Tho object of the law was to prevent secret burials of persons who might have been dono away with by some crime. Tho offence was not a light matter. Had prisoner been found guilty after trial ho would probably havo had a sentence or very severe fine imposed. Tho case, however, would be met by a fine of £lO and costs of prosecution £4 2s.