Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7921, 29 September 1904, Page 7

Supreme Court.

WEDNESDAY,

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Cooper.)

BIGAMY,

Further evidence, as follows, was adduced in the case against Jas. Dobbs of committing bigamy, in 1902, at Waipawa. . ■ . .

The witness, Ed. Simms, in further cross-examioatioD, said he saw the prisoner at his mother's place four years aco.

The depositions of the witness in the lower Court were put in evidence. The next witness for the Crown was Selina Dobbs, but objection to her giving evidence was taken by prisoner's counsal, and, his Honor upholding h, the witoess stood down.

Biizibeth Home said she knew both prisoner and Mrs Dobbs. She knew them both before and after marriage Previous to being married they lived on adjoining factions, Witness remembered both of them going away to be married, and when they returned prisoner went to live at Mra Dobbs, house. She had never heard their marriage mentioned. She was present at the birth of both the first and secoud children. Cross-examined witness denied'ever making any statement reflecting upon the paternity of the last child born. She was not aware they separated in 1894, because she 'had seen prisoner visiting Mrs Dobbs at different periods. She was aware they kept separate establishments, and. also that prisoner, subsequently, went away from Palmerston. •

Constable Hattie said he brought the prisoner to Palmerston from Waipawd, In a conversation with him Dobbs did' not deny that he had married" again He said also that Mrs Dobbs had turned him and his children out of the house and said she did not want to see them again. He r admitted he had married Mrs Seabright, a widow with three children, and said he had told her he ,was living with another woman in Palmerston. A letter written by the prisoner to S. Dobbs, Feilding, was read to the jury. It was as follows :— Ormondville, Adhl 19 th. Mrs Dobbs, I received your letter last week. Of course you know you told me I could do what I liked, you would never interfere with me, but I see you have taken a fresh view of the matter now. Of course I' am in yonr hands. You can of course give me, I suppose, five years if you like, but I don't see that will do you any good, but I would like to meet you somewhere if you would appoint a place and arrange something. I am, yoursj

J. Dobbs. In opening the oase for the defence, counsel said he would prove that witness had not heard of his wife for seven years, and, in that case, he contended prisoner should be acquitted. He also had perfectly reliable information, as he thought, that his first wife was dead. He did not learn this, for nearly two years after his second marriage, and he then received two registered letters asking for money. The first witness called for the defence was S. B. Lancaster, who said that in the spring of 1894 prisoner and his children went to live in Fitzherbert.

Ed. Price said he had knows prisoner since 1893, and knew that he was married to Mrs Simms. In 1894 prisoner lived, in Main-street with his children, but his wife was net there. In the same year witness built a whare for them on Mr Lancaster's property, and prisoner and his family went to live there.. The prisoner admitted he married Selina Simms in 1892 and they lived together, not happily, for 18 months. Just before that period had elapsed Mrs Dobbs went to Wellington with her children, and stayed away four or five months.. After ahe came back she put witness' children out on the road and he weDt too. He lived in Main-street for two months and then went to Mr Lancaster's to live. Subsequently witness lived in the Hokcwhitu and Mohaka, Napier, and then went to Ormondville. "Witness denied he was at Mrs Dobba' place four years' ago. He was then at Mohaka. He also denied that he saw his wife at Hokowhitu after the death of one of his children. He had not Bpoken to his wife since 1894. While in Ormondyille a man, Arthur Elliot, told him Mra Dobbs had died in Wellington. Hia Honor ruled the evidence was inadmissable and in any case it was not a reasonable or sufficient ground for b&lieving hia wife was dead, even if he had believed it.

Witness, continuing, said he was married;about two weekß after he heard his wife was dead. ' '

Hia Honor—You made no further en quiries ?—No.

Witness, added that he had received a letter from his wife, after his second marriage, saying that rshe expected to get from him some interest she had lose by marrying him and she also expected a Inmp sum down. He wrote the letter, addte3sed to Feilding, to Mrs Dobbs and later on lie got another letter from his wife stating, if he was not down by a certain date she would take legal proceedings against him.

Cross-examined witness said he had riot 'made any enquiries as to his wife's death before marrying a second time. In summing up his Honor said there were two issues for the jury to determine. ' The first that the prisoner knew that his wife was alive at any time duriug the seven years preceding his marriage with Mrs Seabright. If the jury was satisfied that the. prisoner did know that his first wife was alive, at any time during the seven years preceding his marriage with Mrs Seabright, then the onus of'proof was shifted and it was for the prisoner to prove that he, in good faith, believed his wife was dead and, consequently,'went through the second marriage His Honor reviewed tha evidence at length and expressed the opinion that there "was no circumstance upon which the jury could find that the prisoner had reasonable groundsfor believing that his wife was dead. If he chose to get married a second time, upon the casual statement of a young man that his wife was dead, that was his business, but to set down that under such circumstances a man could marry another woman and escape the consequence of his crime woujd be a public calamity. What reliance, continued, his Honor, could be placed upon the evidence of the prisoner in the f ace oi the declaration, made by him on the occasion of his second marriage, that his. wife had' died in September, 1891. a year before he married Mrs Dobbs. The declaration was not correct as applied to either of his marriages. Referring to a plea for sympathy on behalf of the

prisoner his Honor said that he "could not understand, under the circumstances, any sympathy beina; felt for the prisoner, when it was proved 'that he had done & crime to an honest woman. That was why bigamy was a criminal offence. It was an offence that destroyed the sanctity of the relationship between a man and his wife and placed an honest woman in aH exceedingly unfortunate position,, because whether a man. was convicted or. not, he had gone through a form.of marriage with an honest woman, and was living.with her in a■: state not sanctified by the law. After an absence.of cloEe upon an hour the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was remanded till the next morning. . .