IN HASTE

NZ Truth, Issue 1143, 27 October 1927, Page 7

IN HASTE

When Sarah London Wed Again (From "N.Z. Truth's" Masterton Rep.) Sarah London was m too great a hurry to launch again upon the sea of matrimony after foundering on her first voyage — and so she committed bigamy. THIS was not an indictment against * her, 'but a revelation -which gave a most disconcerting twist to her case when she sought a maintenance order from the man who was the second to win her affections. In the Greytown Magistrate's Court, Sarah London, of Ahikoha, Greytown, took action against William London, laborer, of Dannevirke, asking that an order be made against him for her adequate maintenance under the Destitute Persons Act. Lawyer R. H. Turton, of Greytown, represented complainant, .who appeared to be a woman of about 60, and Lawyer R. R. Burridge, of Masterton, sponsored defendant. Lawyer Turton said he understood opposing counsel intended to prove that the parties were not husband and wife. If proof of this could be produced, then it was realized that the case for complainant must fail. In presenting defendant's case, Lawyer Burridge explained that complainant had been married originally to one George Yickerstaff, with whom she was not living when she met defendant. She represented that she was a widow, making no mention of her husband. In consequence, the parties went through a form of marriage m the office of the registrar at Newman, Eketahuna, on April 5, 1901. Thereafter the parties lived together. Some months later complainant confessed to defendant that she already had a husband, who had deserted her some years before. However, she prevailed upon defendant to allow her to take divorce proceedings against Vickerstaff from whom she had not heard for several years. -, At the Supreme Court, Wellington, on August 2, 1901, she obtained a <de- : cree nisi against Vickerstaff and on No - r vember 7 a decree absolute. I However, after this, complainant I and defendant did not again go I through the marriage ceremony that would have made them man and wife, and thus counsel claimed that they had no legal relationship. Complainant haid six or seven children by her first marriage, but none by her second. "A Moral Obligation" Evidence was given on these lines by defendant. He produced a copy of the decree absolute obtained by complainant at Wellington and acknowledged that notwithstanding the invalidity of his marriage with complainant, they had continued to live together until about six or seven years ago. Lawyer Turton (m cross-exam-ination): "Do you not consider that m the circumstances you have a moral obligation to this woman?" Defendant: "I am not prepared to contribute to her maintenance." Complainant was not called. Magistrate S. L. P. Free intimated his intention to adjourn the hearing of the case to give counsel for defendant an opportunity to produce the certificate of marriage between defendant and complainant. This, he said, would prove conclusively whether or. not the parties were man and wife. At a subsequent sitting of the court m Masterton, counsel produced the required certificate. Counsel for complainant agreed that his case could not succeed. He pointed out, however, that on March 29, 1901, his client had filed her petition m divorce and on April 5 it was lodged m Wellington. On the latter date— which was the date complainant and defendant went through a form of marriage at Eketahuna — complainant had understood that her divorce upon the petition being lodged, was complete. This was the only explanation he could give. Without comment, the Magistrate said he could make no order.