ALLEGED BIGAMY.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1917, Page 4

ALLEGED BIGAMY.

An Auckland Case. Falsa Declaration Charge. A young man named John Hugh Hall, alias John Robert ' s Smith (24) was charged before Mr F. V. Fraser, S.M, at Auckland that on February 12th he committed bigamy in that, being then married, ho went through the form of marriage with one Rita Thoijpe, He was also charged that he made a false declaration for the purpose of obtaining a marriage certificate. Evidence was given that on May 26th, 1913, aocnsed was married under the name of John Hugh Hall, at St Benedict’s Church, Auckland to Rose Elizabeth Hall, by Father William J. Ford, who identified a woman who appeared in court as Rose Elizabeth Hall, as one of the parties to the marriage, and the accused as the other party. FOUND IN HIDING, Detective Cullen stated that on February 17th he arrested accused at the house of Joseph Thorp, Church street, Ponsonby. He found the accused hiding under a box in oae of the rooms of the house. When charged with bigamy, he said : “I have made a fool of myself, and 1 will take all the blame, I did not 'realise what .1 was doing, and that it was suoh a serious matter.” He also admitted that he had been married at St Benedict’s Church in 1913, and had lived with his lawful wife in Ancklapd until a few weeks before his arrest. In reply to Mr Simpson (for accused), the witness said that Hall had previously been in trouble, for

breaking and entering/ 1 but ho ,waa vary young then, and had of late years be«n behaving himself very wed. ANNIVERSARY DAY ENGAGEMENT. Rita Thorp, a domestic, i*<»id ebe had known 'accused for re v ß« or eight months, and had “ kept company’' with him almost all (bat time. He did rot make any explanation in that time about being siugie, and she did not ask him whether ha wna married or single. He told her hi? tamo vaas John Robert Smith’ They bee ms engaged on Anoiveraary Day, January 29tb, when ba gave her a ring, and an February 12th they wens through the form of marriage before the Rev J. R. Jeffry Bat Ponscuby. She did lot know accused's name was Hall inti! the day before he was arrested. She. first came to know him accideataly, by mistaking him for a friend and ;hey becitne acquainted, but be gave ler no information regarding himself. iVhen he was liberated on bail, the icoaaed stayed at her parents’ place, md had been staying there until that lay. * A DOUBT ABOUT THE NAME Farther evidence was given that in February accused, in applying fo. a marriage license, gave his name as John Robert Smith, and described himself as a farmer and batchelor. When telephoning the Rsv F. Jeffreys* concerning the marriage, some man, who made an appointment, gave a name which Mr Jeffreys took to ba Hall, but when accused appeared at the appointed place he said his name was Smith, and that he had not given the name Hall over the ’phone. At that appointment accused said that the marriage, which was first arranged to take place on February 3rd, was cancelled, hut he did not state the reasons, though he particularly asked how long the license held good, and was told three months. Later he rang up Mr Jeffrey*, saying the Thorps had moved to Ponsonby, and the marriage was arranged to take piece on February 12th. The marriage did take place at tbe church at Ponsonby on that date, but, owing to tbs misunderstanding over the. ‘phone about tbe name, be was asked publicly what his name was, and he gave it as John Robert Smith, and said he was not known by any other name. He told Mr Jeffreys that he was a farmer at Kaiapoi, and was paying all the expenses of the wedding. Accused, who pleaded *• Not guilty,” and reserved his defence was com-

mitted to the Supreme Court for trial at the session commencing on May 21st. Bril was allowed in one surety of £IOO, with a condition that accused reported himself periodically to> the police*