BIGAMY CONVICTION

Hokitika Guardian, 4 December 1930, Page 6

BIGAMY CONVICTION

THE JUDGE'S DIRECTION,

(By Telegraph—Press Association)

NELSON, Dec. 3

At the Supreme Court the hearing was concluded on a charge of bigamy against John Charles Rumbles Topp. Mr C. Ri. Fell prosecuted and Air W. Nicholson appeared for accused. The following jury was called : H. S. Doidge, AV. Chapman, H. H. Kinzett, G. F. Glover, T. Burn, R. Johnston, L. Ingham, A. McKenzie, A. Holbrook, F. P. Holland, F. N. Jones, H. R.. Nesbitt. Air Glover was chosen foreman. The Crown Prosecutor, in outlining, the facts, said that accused in 1915 married at Aberdeen, Helen C. Wilson and came to New Zealand. In 1923, Airs Topp returned to England. In 1925 accused married at Nelson, Ruth C. Simpson. He went through the second form of marriage because he said that in June* 1924. lie got a letter signed “J.,” his first wife’s sister, saying that his wife had died. The letter had never heen produced; he had stated that he showed it to the second wife and it was then burnt. It was as the result of the Scottish police making inquiries as to accused’s whereabouts to get maintenance for the first wife that the present proceedings arose. After two hours’ retirement, the jury returned a. verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy. His Honour. Justice Reed, who presided, ordered accused to come up for sentence if called upon within twelve months, imposing certain stipulated conditions.

Witnesses testified accused’s good character in New Zealand. The police stated he had answered all questions openly and frankly. In summing up, His Honour said that this case was important from the point of view of tlie accused and also important to the community because of the danger of people coming from distant countries, and by concealing the fact that they had been previously married, practically destroying or injuring the'lives of young girls in New Zealand. It was an important question from a social point of view, and it was for the juries to fix a standard of reasonable care that should he exercised in inquiring as to a former wife’s death. After explaining the law dealing with bigamy. His Honour said that the jury would have to determine as to whether they considered the letter whieli the accused said he had received from his first wife’s sister, announcing his wife’s death, had ever existed. Tf they came to the conclusion that the whole of tin's story was a, make-no, they would need to go further. If, however, they considered that* the letter possibly existed., then t-bov. bad to consider whether the accused honestly /believed in the truth of the lettei on reasonable grounds and there cem° in the function of the iurv in settling the standard of care which should he exercised.

The jury returned with its verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation for mercy.

The Foreman stated that the iurv was agreed that the accused had. received a. letter from “J.;” but that, he had not used reasonable care and judgment to prove the death of his first wife on the receipt, of the V+ter. On hearing the verdict, the wjfe of the accused collapsed, and she was carried sobbing into-an ante-room.

Counsel for the accused made a plea for leniency.

His Honour. in nasdng sentence, said: “T am very glad that, the inw have done their dutv in thi« ma+ter regard l css of the svmonthy which ope must feel for the unfortunate second wife. At, the same time, it shows that juries, as far as this nlace is concerned, are not prepared to allow a. man to come and make the simple excuse of having, had a, letter without making further inouiries. and then going through... a form of marriage while his wife is alive.

His Honour .went on to «ev that he did not” propose to send the accused to gaol or to grant probation, but, he would order him to come up for sentence if called upon.

“My reason for doing this.” added His Honour, “is that I propose to sec that voti do the right thing by this young woman, and, therefore, you will lie ordered to come up for sentence at any time within 12 months on the following conditions: On the payment of the costs of prosecution (£lO 13sA to be paid in two halfyearly instalments; and that you take immediate steps to obtain a divorce from your first wife, and marry the second. Tf that is done within 12 months, you will hear no more.