PATEA DISTRICT COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume I, Issue 94, 4 March 1876, Page 2

PATEA DISTRICT COURT.

(’ n ! M 1 N A L S1 T T 1 N U A . Wedsesdav, M.VIM'H !. (Before his Ifniiui- Judge Kenny.) Tin? C'ri lll iiin 1 Ril Hii'-rs of (he District ('diirt opened on \\ eduesday last, but the business was confined to one case. 'l’lio Bar was represented by Alr S)mulish, Crown Prosecutor, .Messrs Fitzherhort. Hughes, Hammerton, anrl Beds. ’1 lit* Iwo latter yen I Icnvu <1 i< 1 not don their forensic coslnme at the opening of tlic • oint. On the jury pane! being ended them were a large number ol ahsait “es, none of whom appeal'd! to excuse themselves, during the day, with the single exception of MrG, Inkster, who was fined T’2 for his dilatorincss. The eotislahle who had served a number of the W.-ur m summonses was not in attendance to prove service, ami these eases were therefore hold over till next sittings. it being understood that not ices for'defaulters to appear, should be given to each in the meantime. A jury-, man named Hunter was excused, as it appeared that he had never received the summons to attend.

lIP Honor remarked on the very large proportion of absentees, and said that solely on that account it was necessary to summon far more jurors than were actirdlv required. He would however punish defaulters severely iu order to compel attendance. FAI.SK DECLARATION’ PRIOR TO MARRIAGE. The Crown Prosecutor stated that he had only one case to bring before the Court, one in which the defendant was chartred with a misdemeanor. The following jury were sworn Messrs Odgers (foreman), Toeker, Patterson, Ross, Hurley, Rassman, Burrell. Campbell, Haywood. Turner, Hook, and Luxford. Before proceeding with the case Ids Honor again remarked on the absence of manv jurors, saying at the same time, that lie was sorry that he could not compliment (lie pirvmen at this cud of his district in the wav lie had been recently able to do at the. New Plymouth end, for their punctual attendance. He would however excuse three of those who had not been called, and did so accordingly. Thomas Role was then charged for that he did, in January last, falsely, wilfully and corruptly sign a declaration before J. Hirst, Esq., ‘Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, for the ’Paten, District, in which he affirmed that there was no impediment of kindred or alliance, to prevent him (defendant) from marrying one Louisa Elizabeth Sole, alias Baldwin, whereby the marriage between the above parties was celebrated by the said Deputy-Registrar. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case at some length, but the public arc already familiar with its leading outlines. On being arraigned the defendant pleaded not guilty, and as the offence charged was only a misdemeanor, he was allowed to sit, next his counsel, Messrs Fitzherbert and Hughes, who defended him. The first witness called was Allen Shaw Douglas who deposed—l am Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for the district of New Plymouth. I pro-

dace the Gazette containing my appointment. (Witness detailed the boundaries ot his district). The document produced is the ce-rtilicate of birth of John Old. a certified copy. It is dated Way, 1818, and is.signed* by Martini Old. I can swear to the handwriting of the certificate produced, of marriage between Martha Old and David hob*, being that of Archdeacon (loveit of Taranaki, in 18-I!h I produce the certificate of tin* binti of defendant, the son of David Sole and Martha Old, horn January Jrd 1851. I also produce the certificate of birth of Louisa Elizabeth Baldwin in 1857. I also produce a certified copy of the marriage of John Sole to Louisa Elizabeth Baldwin by the Rev. J. Dumhell. Defendant tame to me in the latter part of last year, and stated that ho wished to he married to Louisa Elizabeth Sole, lie called on me on three dill’erent oeeasions. The fust time was about the 131 hj December, 1875. The person he wished to marry, I elicited from liim, was the widow of the illegitimate half brother of: defendant, Thomas Sole. Having discovered this, I would not allow him to give the notice, wishing time to consider the matter, but told him to call in a few days. Defendant called subsequently, and I thm told him that the marriage could not take place, and I refused to allow him to give notice. I explained to him that, the relationship between himself and his late half-hrother was a legal bar to his marriage with the widow. Defendant made no concealment of the fact, that the young woman he wished to marry was the widow of his deceased half-brother. He also stated that his half-brother was illegitimate, and considered that that fact did away with the bar of relationship, I explained to the contrary showing that the illegitimacy did not destroy the relationship as far as marriage was concerned. Defendant was not satisfied, and I advised him to take legal advice on the matter, and lie left my office with that, intention. 1 saw him again about the 20lh of December, uid, in reply to my question, he said that he had taken legal advice on the matter, but that the reply w;.s neither favourable nor adverse. I told him that I was of the same opinion and that, it would he quite useless for ;.im to glee me notice, tor ho could not make the necessary declaration without rendering himself liable to prosecution. Defendant was very much disappointed, and 1 (lien ottered to refer the matter to the Registrar-General of Marriages. 1 had previously explained to him that he could not niulerlhe lifili section of the Act. make the declaration needed that there was no impediment of kindred or alliance. [ promised to communicate the decision of the Registrar-General to Air J. Grozier, residing in New Plymouth, as the defendant lived in the country. I wrote to the Rcgistrar-Geiieial, and received the reply produced. (This was read and stated that the half brother was equivalent to a full brother, and that tin* marriage would be illegal). I subsequently gave instructions to my clerk to notify Mr (Vozier (he tenor of the above reply. 1 have nut seen (he defendant on the subject subsequently. Gross-examined by Mr Hughes.—Defendant, 'when he came to me first, did not tell me that ho wished to get married, if theie was any legal impediment to his doing so. 1 advised him not to attempt it. ami lie replied that, nnh-ss he could legally he married, he would not live with her without being married. 1 do not think he mentioned the name of any solicitor that he had consulted. Defendant did state that. John Sole having married in that name, instead of Old, destroyed tie; validity ot that marriage, hut 1 disabused his mind at once of that Impression. In d-nhtiul matters 1 always refer to head quarters. On (his question 1 had now doubt, hut f referred in Wellington for defendant’s s itislaetion. I would have issie‘d a certificate, had the Registrar-General been of opinion that the parlies could be legally married. I was aw. mv from the -‘Olli December till the, I *.ifli of Jannarv.

Itv the Crown Proseenfor. —When I li ft I authorised ,Mr Bayly to act lor me. In replv to the Court, the witness explained the process by which marriages were effected hy Registrars, and explained that certificates were issued on a certain declaration being made. The Court then adjourned till 2 o’clock, tho jury being .allowed to go to their homes to luncheon, the Judge remarking that he trusted to their honm not to discuss the question during their liberty. He further added that ho would consider any discussion as a gross contempt, of Court and would certainly indict the fullest punishment of six months imprisonment, which would involve hard labour. With this caution the jury were allowed to go at large. On the Court resuming the next witness was Mr James Hirst. Deputy Registrar of Births. Deaths, and Marriages for the Patna district. He. proved what he had previously proved in the R.M. Court, viz. that the defendant duly applied to him for a certificate authorising marriage, declaring at the same time that he and his intended wife were of full age, that there was no legal impediment to their marriage, and that she was a spinster, named Louisa Elizabeth Baldwin. Subsequently be married them according to the Act, but in consequence of instructions given by the Registrar-General lie instituted the proceedings that led to the trial. In cross examination by Mr Fitzherbert witness said that his suspicions were first aroused through a conversation he had with a carter named George Dyer. Subsequently st-veral people spoke about the matter, one named Barrett. lie had known the parents of defendant more than twenty years. In re-examination by the Crown Prosecutor, witness explained how he came into conversation with Dyer and others, whereby the relationship of the parties was discovered. Martha Sole, mother of defendant, doposed. —I am the wife of Dai id Solo, a fanner, living at Taranaki. My maiden name was Martha Old. I have been married twenty-six years, and was married hy Archdeacon Govett. John Sole who was killed at Hawera was my son. He was killed last December twelvemonth and was then 2fi years of age. He had, up to the time of his death, lived with me and my husband, and went by the name of John Sole. He was married to defendant’s present wife. Thomas Sole, tire defendant, is my son.

By .Mr Hughes—-John Sole was burn before I was married. ami was baptised under the name of John Old. I did not speak to him about marrying in the name he did, till lie hud got Ids certificate to marry, but before being married I told him he had no right to the name of Bole. Before he got married I asked him what name lie would take.

In reply to his Honor, Mr Hughes slated that John Sole deceased was nut the son of David Sole. Cross-examination contained—l told defendant's wife that Sole was not iter name, 11 1 fit she had nut been married in 1 improper name. I knew defendant intended to come to Patea to be married, and I eonS' iited to his marriage. The father of defendant's wife consented to her marriage.

Be-oxamined hy the Crown Prosecutor - Tin? laic John Sole always called my husband father, and me mother. My husband behaved as a rather to him, and he was always known by the name of John Sole. -After lie bad taken bis marriage certificate, lie objected to change (he nanv' to Old. I did not absolutely object to Ids taking the name of Sole, but my husband did on the day betook his certificate out. I think his reason was lest it, should affect the validity of .the marriage. He never objected to it before. I told Mrs Sole during my son's life that her name was Old. and be was baplised in that name, hence lie was so called. This concluded the case for the Crown, but some other witnesses who were on (he indictment, including defendant’s wife, were called formally for the purpose of examination for the defence. Louisa Elizabeth Sole said—l was first married to John Old, or Joint Sole, [ was notaware at (hetime I was marrie I to him. that his name was Old. I fird knew it from his mother in October, 187-1. 'fids knowledge made me no longer consider myself as bis wife, he having married me under a false nance. 1 never resumed the name of Old on any occasion. I n-ver saw my husband alive afterwards. When I came to be married at Patea 1 used the name of Baldwin. I used that name because my father told me f should have lo use the name of Baldwin, it I married any man. He fold me fled he knew 1 was married in a false name before. He approved of my marriage to defendant, and (be Jrd of last January was fixed for it to come off.

Re-examined by the Crown Prosecutor — F always knew my late husband l>y the name of John Sole. He never told me his name was anything else, I was Tint deceived in marrying him, as I always intended to marry him. On hearing that my proper name was Old, I was much distressed, for I did not think that I was lawful'y married. I made no enquiries from the Registrar, nor from ministers or lawyers, to ascertain the truth on this point. Wo wore to be married at New Plymouth on the 3rd of January, and on that day wo decided to come to Patea. I shall he I‘J years of age in Jnlv next. J. 0. Beamish was called, hut was not examined. Waiter Baylv, examined bv Mr Fitzherbert, proved that lie had known John Old, the for nor husband of defendant’s wife, though he went: hy the name of Sole in New Plymouth. He also knew defendant. Cross-examined hy Mr Stan Hsh—-Wit-ness was a cousin of the lata* John Sole. 'Phis closed tin 1 defence, hut the Crown Prosecutor address-d the jurv hj -fore the case was closed wholly. f]e u fired (hat the case had b-cii proved hj >voud dispute, ami that the declaration of the defendant prior to his marriage had K-en wilfully false. He dwelt at some haurlh on th-se points, and showed that, thnmrb tie* jnrvmen were bound hy their oaths to brine- in a verdict accordinr to the evidence, mercy might he accorded hv his Honor the Judge, in awarding punishment, should the eireumstanees justify it. Mr Fitzherhert made a most cloqueut and feeling speech on he.lialf of (he defendant. arguing that in consequence of ih - doubtful redationsbio. the advice of his wife's father, and cither circumstances defendant was rcallv unaware that he was commiiUug auv offence. He also objected on behalf of the accused that, in the first place, the I0)h section of the Mariage AcR end *r which def aidant had been arraigned, had been repealed, and in the second nlace t hat no late was contained in the indictment, on which thealleged offence was stated to have been or mini fed.

A rather prolonged a"gum«nf. arose otj these points, but the latter objection was overruled by bis Honor. The first was reserved hv the Gourt, in case of a conviction ensuing, the point to be argued either before bis Honor, or the Supreme Court, as might be, determined. His Honor summed up in a most .lucid manner, and the inrv after a very short retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty, but at the same time most strongly recommended defendant to mercy, under the circumstances. The point reserved by tho Court, raised by Mr Fitzherbert, was a bar to sentence being pronounced, and defendant, was therefore liberated on bail, to appear at New Plymouth on the tilth inst., to come up for judgment, when the question would be finally argued and decided on. Bail in two sureties of ,£lO each was accepted, and defendant, was allowed to leave the Court. The Court then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on the following day when flic only civil case was set down for hearing. CIVIL SITTINGS. Thurspay. Manon *2. There were two cases set down for trial, one MeGni-e r. T. MeDonogli. an action to recover £O2 10s rent, and the other referred to below. In the former case the service of the summons was not proved, and the case was necessarily postponed. VAVASOUR v. QUIXI.IVAN-. This was an action to recover the sum of £B4, alleged to be due for breach of contract on the part of defendant. Mr Hammerton of New Plymouth, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Betts, of Wanganui, for the defence. The evidence given was exceedingly lengthy, and as contradictory as usual in “horsey’ cases. The hearing occupied' all the dav. and the jury did not return their verdict till 9 o’clock. The following jury of four were empanelled to fry the case, Messrs H. I. Davis ("foreman), J. Fairweather, E. Garner, and J. Keys.

The case for the plaintiff was, that he purchased from defendant, an entire horse named Lochlomotul, for the sum of t'iod, a condition being attached to the purchase, that he (def.-udant) guaranteed titty mares to the horse for the season. The performance of this guarantee was really the point at issue, plaintiff alleging that, lie had lulled to secure the number, and had sustained damage thereby, to the amount claimed,whilst defendant alleged, in the first place, that the guarantee was not binding, through the default of plaintiff in not. adhering strictly to the terms on which the horse's services were originally offered by him (defendant). The variation consisted in an extra charge of os b dug made for groomage, A number of technical objections were raised hy Mr Bdls without avail, and eventually, after a two hours consultation, the jury-sound a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages v-15, and tMB, 18s costs. This conclude | tiie business of the District Court, which was then adjourned.