AUCKLAND BIGAMY CASE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3532, 2 November 1882, Page 4

AUCKLAND BIGAMY CASE.

The man Lyttle, who was acquitted at the last criminal sittings of the Supreme Court of bigamy, because the Judge did not consider the first wife was sufficiently identified as the person mentioned in the marriage certificate, was again charged at the Police Court on Wednesday, when the Rev. M'Kenzie Eraser, 8.A., deposed he was minister of St. David's Presbyterian Church, Auckland, and knew accused and Miss Willows (the second wife). He had seen them together in witness' house, Graftonroad. They saidsthey were in a difficulty, and asked his advice. Accused spoke and handed him the marriage certificate (produced). He wished to know if it was a regular certificate. Witness told Lyttle it was perfectly regular. He replied, ' Then she is my wife ?' Witness said, ' Certainly, provided there is no hitch or entanglement.' He might have said, jokingly, ' Provided you have not been married before.' Prisoner said, ' Ah ! there it is. I have been married to Mrs Baker, either of New Plymouth or Normanby. , On examining the* certificate more_ closely, he found that Lyttle had described himself as a bachelor. Witness said, ' This looks very suspicious ; now how did it come about ?' He said he had been bachelorising for some time, and thought he might be entitled to call himself a bachelor. Ho was under the impression that his former wife was dead. He had heard a report that she was dead, and had written to her, but received no reply; hence ho concluded that she was no more. Witness asked him if he had taken any other steps in the matter. He replied, ' No.' He also said his wife had married Mr Baker because of a report that he (prisoner) had gone down in the Tararua ; consequently she considered herself a widow and at liberty to marry again. Ho (Mr Frasor) asked prisoner why he had come to him; it was a double case of bigamy ; did lie wish to consult him on the moral or legal aspect of the case ? If on the latter, he should go to a lawyor ; but in

a moral point of view his duty was clear, namely, to separate at once from his second wife, as the second marriage was no marriage either in the sight of God or man. Prisoner then commenced to cry, and said he loved his second wife very dearly, and would do anything rather than bo separated from her and the child. Witness advised him to get a divorce from his first wife, as until that was done they would be living in a state of sin. He replied that his brother-in-law, Willows, was determined to prosecute him. He asked if it was not best for him to take his passage and leave the colony. itness did not advise him to do this ; if he loved his second wife as he said he did, he should obtain a divorce and get married over again. He said he would not leave if he could pacify Mr Willows, and induce him not to proscute. The second wife, who appeared to be on most amicable terms with the firet wife, sympathising with each other's sorrows, deposed that when she heard Lyttle had another wife living she would not stop with him. He told her he intended to plead guilty. Other evidence was given, and prisoner was committed for trial.