BIGAMIST PLAYS HIS LAST CARD

NZ Truth, Issue 1191, 27 September 1928, Page 3

BIGAMIST PLAYS HIS LAST CARD

Can A Man Change Color of His Eyes and Reduce His Height By Three Inches?

BUT HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL IN HOPE'S BREAST

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Speoial Auckland Bepreaentatlve.)

. HE BRAVED ALL on one final throw. Fighting against a damning array of witnesses, whose evidence was as conclusive as any evidence could be, John William Hope played ha last card —and lost • » .■■■'to leave the Auckland Supreme Court branded as a bigamist and covered With the mantle of an implied unmitigated liar. His last card was a good one, but it was not good enough. Can a man change the color of his eyes — and can he reduce his height by\three inches? The impossibility of such a thing was what— through his counsel, Lawyer J. /. Sullivan — Hope set out to prove, but he failed dismally m establishing his [plea of mista ken identify. ,'. judge Reed dismissed his appeal against the decision of Magistrate Hunt, who, hoehe months ago, found against Hope m one of the most astounding maintenance cases ever heard m a court of law and passed sentence of six months' imprisonment upon him.

til HAVE not the slightest doubt, Mr. 1 Sullivan, that you believe m your client, but I have not the doubt that he is the man , . . and the appeal will be dismissed. * "It is too much a tax on one's credulity and the amazing sequence of coincidence makea it quite impossible to pxjcept the story." That was how the judge wrote *Finis" to the case that has been drag-, teing'on for years. Notwithstanding the fact that the taan of the same name who was arrestQd In England m 1921 for default lender a maintenance order was described by the police at the time as having brown eyes, and whose height was given as five feet five, Hope, who was alleged to be the same man, was described by Lawyer Sullivan as. having blue eyes and his height, was. given !cis five feet two. .' • •, . ; ■» • But even this remarkable discrepancy paled into insignificance beside the solid mass of evidence, taken on deposition m England, that all went to establish Hope's identity beyond ; question. . '< If, m spite of all, Hope's story Is true, then he is the most maligned . man who ever fell Into the net of adverse circumstanoe. ( That he is maligned and a victim *of .mistaken identity is almost Impossible of belief — so complete was the evidence against him. This unique matrimonial story was related m the columns of "Truth" when the case was before the magistrate m i September of last year. But since then Hope has not been i Idle. He has stuck to his story that | he is not the man who was arrested | i by the English police and came before Judge Reed m a last desperate attempt to convince the world that his story was true. , Lawyer Hubble, who opposed the appeal, dealt exhaustively with the facts of the case and went Into considerable detail. It was on August 29, 1918, he said, that a man named John William Hope married Annie Bray at Sheffield, In the marriage certificate Hope was .described as a' bachelor and his trade Vas given as an electrical fitter. On July 22, 1921, m the court of summary jurisdiction at Sheffield, John .) 'William Hope was ordered to pay 80/- --■ weekly. '

Marriage Tangle

The address of Hope was given as [103, Walkeden Road, "Worsley, near Manchester.' Later, on June 20, 1922, on the ap-plication-of Hope, the maintenance order was reduced to 26/- per week, so that the man who had been served with I the order m the first place actually [made application later for a reduction \jn the amount. ■ i I r In 1923 a marriage had taken place fljetween Hope and a woman named Edith Barnes. On the second marriage certificate .Hope was named John William, his staJtus was given as bachelor and his occupation that of an eleqtrical fitter. The names of his parents were also the same as those given on the first pertiflcate. In December, 1923, Annie Barnes, a sister of the second bride, made inquiries, as a result of whioh she came to the conclusion that the John William Hope who had married her sister was the tame man who was the husband of the woman m Sheffield. (She -wrote to the first wife and In icbrrespondenoe that ensued she had \ feason to believe that Hope was married again. Depositions of the first wife were taken and sent out to New Zealand, together with a photograph of Hope, In 1924, Hope was sentenced In New Zealand to six months' imprisonment for failing to comply with the order. He actually served the sentence. There was a further, hearing of the £ase m April, 1926, when Hopo was sentenced to two months' imprison- ' inent. . 1 Afterwards, Hope left for Wellington, where he lived under the name of jLane. : •! His final, appearance before the lower court Was m September of last •year, when he appeared befpre Magistrate Hunt and was convicted. It was from that conviction that he appealed m the Supreme Court. Lawyer Hubble briefly summarized the facts and. informed his honor that the evidence before him was that taken In England on deposition. . The photograph which had been sent that of Hope; his name, his occupation and the name of 'his parents were the same. , The second evidence wa,s that of Hppe himself, "who had given the names of his father and mother and facts about his boyhood, as well as information at>out ships he had been on. Hope had. also discussed Ms association with the Manchester dry docks

and had said there had been a man of the same' name as himself and the same build working there. . "Now," said Lawyer Hubble, "the statement of the foreman of the dry docks 'will be that, although there was a man working at the docks by the name of John Hope, he had left the job about six weeks before John "William Hope was engaged. "Further, the foreman said that John Hope was a much blder man and there was no resemblance between the two." .

Counsel then went on to refer the court to the evidence of English police witnesses as to their inquiries and

also the evidence of one officer who had executed a warrant against Hope In 192 i. . ■'■ ' The evidence of Hope's mother was also referred to. She stated that she thought her son married Annie Bray m 1916. She was unable to give the date of the separation, but she thought It' was m 1921. : • In ; 1923, stated the mother, Annie Barnes oalled upon her and told her that Hope had married her sister and that they had gone to New Zealand. Lawyer Hubble submitted that there was ample evidence to show that Hope was 1 one and , the same man. . '■ aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir

Two John Hopes ?

lawyer Sullivan j "Hope has Insisted all along that he is not the man. He states that he was never m Sheffield m all his life and will swear that he never was there. 1 ' '•, After further comment from counsel, as to the Inquiries he had made of the English authorities concerning Hope, the Judge suggested that counsel's chief difficulty would be the mother's evidence.

Lawyer Sullivan: '1 appreciate that, your honor. I am not suggesting that the police put the words into her mouth, but there is one extraordinary clrcum-

I stance about her ■ evidence. Although the police witness etated that* he had arrested Hope In 1921,' no reference was made by the mother to that fact. . "Now, I submit," counsel oontinued, "that if the arrest had actually happened, that would be the first thing this old lady of 74 would have remembere.d. Yet there' is no suggestion that she ever remembered it." Counsel then passed to. the question of the police description of Hope, made at the time of his alleged arrest. "His age was given at 80, his height at five feet five and the color of his eyes was stated to be brown. "This man's height is five feet two iiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiimiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiitiiimiiiiiiimiiiittra

and his eyea are blue. Now, sir, I submit that if this had been an ordinary case, no jury on the question of the color of the man's eyes would convict when there was such a discrepancy." Counsel also urged the importance of the evidence of photographic experts who had seen the portrait of Hope, sent from England, and had pointed out discrepancies m the features as between the picture and Hope himself. Lawyer Sullivan then put Hope m the box. Counsel: You have heard the statement of Davies, the foreman of the dry docks, read out, m which he stated that there was a man named John Hope employed, who was discharged before you went there on account of his intemperate habits? — Yes; I knew that man and Da vies* statement is nothing but falsehoods. • Do you know why this other man Hope was discharged? — Yes, he was discharged for gambling. Were you there when he was discharged? — Yes. Hope added that there had been three men of the same name working at the docks— one John and two John .William Hopes. Counsel: You have heard what your mother says; is she your mother? — No, she is not. 1 When did your own mother die? — When I was a youngster. Where were you living at that time? — At 175, Walkeden Road, Worsley. Hope vehemently denied that he had ever been to Sheffield and denied that he had ever been arrested. Lawyer Sullivan: What Is your height?— Five feet two. It was never five feet five originally, was it?— No (laughter). The Judge: Were you ever measured for your height m England? — No. Hope, m reply to further questions, said he had made efforts to get back to England, but he had been refused a passport after he had booked his passage. Lawyer Sullivan: Now, If you could get back to England, you could fix this business up?— Yes, I could settle the whole thing In three months,, whereas it has been going on for five years here. Lawyer Hubble then cross-examined. Counsel: You have never been to Sheffield?— No. I take It that you suggest that this other man who worked m the Man-

Appeal Dismissed

Chester dry docka is really the man concerning "whom the mistake has been made?— l could not say that. But there was a man there like you at the Yes. Tou 'disagree with the evidence of the dock foreman, then? — -Yes, very muoh so. . Do you suggest that the John William Hope mentioned by, him is not yourself ?— No, it is not myself. Do you know that he describes the [address of the J. W. Hope as 103, Walkeden Road? — Yes. Your birthday, you say» was on December 29, 1891?^-Yes. Now, this man who was very like you lived m Sheffield, did he? < -rl don't know. Did he not tell you, he lived there? — He did not tell me directly. Who told you, then?— l learned about it afterwards. There was a stir of Interest when Alice Hope, the second wife, entered the witness-box. • She married Hope, eh© said, m July, 1923, and prior to the wedding she had been "keeping company" with him for two and a-halx years. During the whole of that period she saw him regularly and for halt the period Hope was working m the same street m which she lived. She saw him about twice a day. Lawyer Sullivan: Could he have gone to Sheffield m any part of 1922 without your knowing?— -No. They say he wias arrested In 1921; was he arrested at any time during that year? — No, he was not. You are positive about that?— Yes. Lawyer Hubble had no questions to ask, and, without preamble, the judge dismissed the appeal, after using the words already quoted. It certainly seems as though the next move m this complicated affair will be the enforced rettre- | ment of John William Hope to one of His Majesty's prisons, there to • work out the sentence imposed by Magistrate Hunt twelve months r < ago. | It is true that Hope springs eternal In the human breast, but John William must fast be coming to the belief that the proverb best suited to his particular case is: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." • He certainly looked it after the judge had sounded the death-knell of his latest hopes. It's a queer world, all right. mniiMiiimiimiiiiiimiiiiinimmiimiimmiiimimiimiimmimiiiiiimiiiiimm