COMMITTED BIGAMY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 128, 28 February 1928, Page 13

COMMITTED BIGAMY

OVER £lOO MAINTENANCE ARREARS APPLICATION FOR REMISSION DISMISSED Sydney Lloyd Taylor applied to Mr. J. 11. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday for tile variation and remission of arrears totalling A 453 on a maintenance order for 12s. fid. a week made in respect to his wile in 1909. The wife, Tiiirza A. Taylor, of Richmond, Christchurch, was not present, but her evidence, taken in the south, was produced by the maintenance officer (Mr. J. F. Manning). The husband, for whom Mr. F. B. Anyon appeared, stated that he had been in ill-health for some time past and was earning very little money. In 1910 lio went Home and joined up with the Navy. During the war he was blown up in three different ships, and when lie returned Io New Zealand in 1923 his injuries hampered him considerably in finding work. Witness said that his wife had only lived with him for twelve months after their marriage. She returned to him subsequently, but then left him again. Under the circumstances he asked that his application be granted. Mr. Manning: When you went away from the Dominion you contracted a bigamous marriage, did you not? You were prosecuted when you returned to New Zealand and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for it?—"Yes." You also served six months’ imprisonment for not complying with the terms of a maintenance order made against you in respect to your wife?—“Yes." You aro about .1153 7s. Gd. behind in arrears, are you not?—"Yes.” And you say that you cannot afford to keep your wife?—"Yes.” You were a co-respondent in a recent divorce ease; is that so?—“Yes.” And you have been keeping the respondent and. living with her —"I was allowing her a few shillings a week.” Mr. Manning said that he thought Taylor should be made to keep his wife and not be allowed to evade his responsibilities. To say that he could not keep, her was all nonsense. He was keeping another woman ami his wife had not seen him for 18 years. The evidence of the wife went to show that she did not know where her husband was or that he had married again until a woman called at her place and inquired if she was the wife. Afterwards the woman left him. In 1925 or 192 G her husband served twelve months’ imprisonment, for which she received .£39 4s. from the prison authorities. While he was in gaol she divorce* him, but she never had the order made absolute. In October. 1926, she took proceedings for arrears amounting to .£432, and for that her husband was sentenced to another six mouths’ imprisonment. During his time in gaol she received 4113 Is. from the authorities. Her husband made no , attempt to pay the order, and fresh proceedings were taken against him for Xis 3 7s. fid. .

Air. -Manning stated that those proceedings had been stood over as a result of Iho present application made to the Court.

Air. Anyon pointed out that during his service with Dio Navy Taylor could not keep up the order because all he received was Is. Sd. per day. His Worship dismissed the applicn-