Hope Identity Puzzle Taken to Parliament

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 784, 3 October 1929, Page 6

Hope Identity Puzzle Taken to Parliament

WIFE IN ENGLAND?

THREE TIMES IMPRISONED (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Wed. John William Hope, of Onehunga, says that, he does not want another wife. He has one already here in New Zealand with him, and he has not been able to convince those in authority that he has not a wife in Sheffield, England, to whom he is alleged to owe arrears of maintenance. Hope's case was brought to mind when the A to L Petitions Committee recommended to the House of Representatives today that Hope’s petition for investigation into alleged wrongful imprisonment be granted. However, the committee added that the only way in which a full investigation could be carried out was to send Hope and his wife to England. Petitioner stated that he had been imprisoned three times in New Zealand for terms, ranging from two months to six months, for alleged disobedience of a maintenance order made at Sheffield, England, in 1921. Petitioner had always maintained that he was not the John William Hope mentioned in the order made at Sheffield. Tracing his movements in various towns, and occupations, he said thst he had never been to. Sheffield in his life. It was stated that one John William Hope was married in 1916 at Sheffield, and that man’s wife was now claiming maintenance, as a result of which claim petitioner was imprisoned. TORPEDOED IN ATLANTIC Petitioner denied any knowledge of the woman who alleged that she was his wife, and who obtained the order against John William Hope in Sheffield in 1916. Petitioner was at sea then, but he could not produce his discharges for that year, as in 1917 he was aboard a ship of the Larrinager Line, in the North Atlantic, when she was torpedoed and sunk, and his discharges for all previous periods from 1914 to that time were lost. When petitioner worked at Manchester dry docks, subsequent to coming ashore in 1919, there were employed at the particular work in which he was engaged as electrician two men named John William Hope, petitioner and another man, who bore a striking resemblance to him, and who actually informed petitioner that his wife resided in Sheffield. Petitioner was married to his one and only wife, then Edith Alice Barnes, at Bolton registry office, England, on July 14, 1922. On August 13, 1923, he and his wife left for New Zealand. In April, 1924, he appeared before the court at Auckland charged with failing to pay arrears of maintenance with respect to Mrs. Hope, of England. Although he protested that he was not the man wanted, the late Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., held that he was the husband, and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. He subsequently appeared before the Wellington court on the same charge. He had consulted Mr. M. J. Savage, M.P., to make representations to the Government, and not having sufficient funds to go to England at the time and feeling that he was a persecuted and innocent man, petitioner gave the name of Lane, his mother's maiden name, hoping in the meantime that the Government, through Mr. Savage, would clear the matter up. STILL PROTESTING In April, 1925, petitioner was brought before the Auckland Court, again protesting his innocence. Counsel, Mr. J. J. Sullivan, communicated with the Minister of Justice, giving all particulars relating to petitioner’s life in England, and the Minister promised to look into the question. Subsequently he sent the Under-Secretary of Justice to Auckland, where he was supplied with all English details by Mr. Sullivan. Nothing, however, had been done. Petitioner was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. The police', he said, had taken from him at the time of his arrest £25, which had been placed, against liis will, to the credit of the woman in Sheffield. Later his people in England had supplied him with £75 to enable him to return, but because he came to New Zealand under the immigration scheme the Government Would not give him a permit to return to England. Now, however, after he had spent his money in maintenance of himself and wife, the Government informed him that It would give him a permit to return. Petitioner had no money to proceed to England. He said that he was sentenced to his last term of imprisonment on October 13, 1927, the order to be suspended so long as he contributed maintenance. He asked for an investigation into the whole matter, and appealed to the House, because he had expended all his resources in contesting the case, and could not afford to take it further.