CALLOUS HUSBAND

Hokitika Guardian, 18 August 1921, Page 1

CALLOUS HUSBAND

BURIES WIFE HIMSELF. [BY TELEGRAPH —rER PRESS ASSOCIATION] AUCKLAND, Aug. 17. An extraordinary story was told- at 11 10 Supreme Court to-day, disclosing some peculiar circumstances surrounding the burial of an old woman who died at Tauranga a short time ago. Tho husband, Edward Mortimer Cillam Maurice, was charged with having made a false statement to the 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 bungled the instructions given him by the Registrar. He had failed to understand what lie was told, and in completing the death certificate, subsequent to the funeral, got a man to sign the document as having witnessed tho burial. At a later stage, Maurice had declared to the Registrar and other officers that the man had seen tho burial. As a matter of fact the “witness” had been in the cemetery prior to the " ~ funeral, had seen the open grave, and afterwards had seen the closed grave. * Counsel said the probation officers ieport was in the prisoner’s favour. Maurice bad no previous convictions, and counsel thought the Court should take into consideration the fact that the accused had actually been in custody for the last 12 days. His Honour: I notice that ho conducted the funeral himself. That might mean poverty. Counsel: My instructions aro that he desired to save the undertaker’s expenses. The Crown Prosecutor said it might - have been on account of poverty, or it h might have been on account of pure callousness. It appeared that when prisoner was informed the death certificate was required, he demurred at first, because of the distance he would * have to fetch a doctor. Ho arrived at the cemetery with the coffin, but without a clergyman, a nd no burial service was read, and there were no witnesses other than himself. The coffin was simply, pat into the gravo t imd

covered up. Afterwards be found he bad no clergyman to certify to the burial, and as he, had to have witnesses lie procured tho signatures of two persons whom lie found there. One of them had actually wanted to attend the funeral, but when he asked the prisoner tho time of the burial, Maurice bad replied that lie did not know, as lie was busy with the creamery. That had a bearing on his attitude of mind as to whether it was a ease of pure ignorance, or whether he simply did not care. His Honour said there were no circumstances showing what object there was for "concealment. The object <>! the law was to prevent secret burials of persons who might have been (lone away with by some crime. The offence was not a light matter. Had the prisoner been found guilty after trial, he would probably have had a sentence or a very severe fine imposed. The case, however, would he met by a fine ot £lO and the costs of the prosecution £4 2s.