BIGAMY AND FALSE REPRESENTATION

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 152, 23 March 1939, Page 6

BIGAMY AND FALSE REPRESENTATION

Man Misleads Two Women

ONE GIVES ALL SAVINGS TO EXPECTED HUSBAND Evidence that William George Alexander Phillips, carpenter, aged 63, went through the form of marriage with a woman while still married to his wife, and persuaded another to pay him all her savings on the statement that he would marry her, was given in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday. To both women, it was alleged, he represented himself as a wealthy man. Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., wb o was on the Bench, ordered the names of the two women, both of whom live in Wellington, not to be published. Phillips pleaded guilty to bigamy and to obtaining from a woman £430 by falsely representing that lie was William Alexander James, a single man, and would marry her, and was remanded to the Supreme Court for sentence.

Accused’s wife said that they lived apart but he had seen her frequently during the last two years.

Lent Him £l6O.

The woman with whom accused was alleged to have gone through the form of marriage illegally, on July 19, 1938, said she was divorced. Accused gave her to understand that he was in comfortable circumstances and had lent £15,000. He said he owned property in Auckland and would take her there to live. On the representation that he was in a strong financial position she lent him £l6O with which to buy a motor-ear, surrendering her life insurilnce policies and selling, her furniture. Later she ascertained that he had no money or property. The other woman, a widow, said she first met accused in September, 1938. He said he was William Alexander James, a bachelor and retired builder. He called at her home on a number of occasions, driving a new motor-car. He told her he was comfortably off and showed her a bank book indicating that he had a credit of £13,000. Witness accepted his proposal of marriage. He told her he intended to take her to live in Melbourne, where he owned house property, and would marry her when he had cleared up his affairs, being interested in numerous businesses in New Zealand. He read .what purported to be his deceased sister’s will, stating that he would receive £2500 from the estate. He told witness that be had made a will in her favour. Accused' asked her how she was placed financially, and she told him she had more than £4OO in the Post Oilice Savings Bank. She was told by him that he had a block of land extending from Elizabeth Street to Home Street, facing Kent Terrace, where he proposed to build a block of flats, and be took her in his car too see it. Life’s Savings Handed Over. Accused suggested that witness advance him £2OO so that she would have an interest in the property and an income of £lO a week. He drove her iu a car to the savings bank, from which she drew £2OO and gave it to accused. Some days later he told her he had sold the property and made £3OOO on the deal, and that he was negotiating for, the purchase of a block in Palmerston. He suggested that she should have a financial interest in the new property. She drew £lOO on October 6, at which time she expected marriage in the very near future. On November 30 she drew £5 and sent it to him in Otaki, as the result of a telegram from him. Early in January he told her he had sent all his money to Australia, except £3OOO. which he had left in the bank in New Zealand to pay the cost of the marriage and the fares. On January 10 she drew and gave to him £95, which he promised to refund when they were married. On February .10 he called at her home in a taxi and told her he needed £lO urgently to square a small account. Detective-Sergeant P. Doyle, who was conducting the case for the police: You went to the post office with accused and drew' £9/15/-, which was all the money you bad in your account? Witness: Yes.

Did you hand him this with 5/- you had in your purse at the time, to make up the £10?— Yes. Did you part with this amount to accused believing that he was going to marry you?—l believed he was going to take me to Melbourne and we would be very financial. Witness said that after accused received the £lO he called on her less frequently. She told him she musthave some money. lie said he had spent it all and would refund it at the rate of £5 a week. She obtained this promise in writing after she found that his name was Phillips and he was a married man. Detective-Sergeant Doyle: And he succeeded in obtaining from you the whole of yotir life’s savings? Witness: Yes, he did. Telling of an interview with accused concerning the allegation of bigamy, Defective S. C. Brown said that accused said. ’*[ have been expecting you. 1 will never see the light of day again,” and I bat lie did not know why be had done it, but wished the matter to be cleared up. When that was done ha would divorce his wife and remarry the other woman. When being interviewed about the false pretences charge he said he wanted matters made as light as possible for the woman concerned. Witness had ascertained that accused did not own the properties to which reference had been made. Accused was not represented by counsel.