QUEER MARITAL TANGLES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 808, 31 October 1929, Page 1

QUEER MARITAL TANGLES

WOMAN ACQUITTED OF BIGAMY CHARGE SIMILARITY OF NAMES An extraordinary story of matrimonial tangles, complicated by the remarkable similarity of names of the parties, was unfolded at the trial of Minna Clamest Horrocks, charged with bigamy, before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday. JJORROCKS was charged with having gone through a marriage ceremony with George Earl at Auckland, on December 21, 1921, when she was then the wife of William Arthur Meredith, whom she had married on October 9, 1912, in England. She was acquitted by the jury. Mr. Hubble prosecuted and Mr. Ray represented the accused. The most interesting witness for the prosecution was William Arthur Meredith, accused’s husband, a Christchurch tailor. He said he had married a woman named Minnie Rowlands just before leaving for the Boer War. He corresponded regularly with his wife while on active service. On the cessation of hostilities he remained six months in South Africa before returning to England He conducted extensive inquiries there, but failed to find his wife, and seven years later he learned she* was dean. About 1912 he said he met the woman Horrocks, in Hereford city. Accused worked for him as a tailoress, and after eight months’ acquaintanceship, he married her. Though he knew the woman’s parents he was unaware that she had previously married a man named Horricks. He and his wife (accused) came to New Zealand the same year and lived with his mother in Christchurch, where accused took a job in the hospital.

His mother disagreed with his wife and they went to Wellington. He strongly refuted the suggestion that accused had ever asked him if he had previously been married or that he had informed her his first wife had no claim on him. At the outbreak of the Great War, witness continued, he enlisted with the third contingent and left New Zealand w r ith the 22nd reinforcements. He had received letters from accused only up to two years before he returned home, though she had continued drawing his allotments until he came back to the Dominion. He had not seen accused since lie left New Zealand until she appeared in the lower court, and their marriage had never been dissolved. HORRICKS OR HORROCKS?

Interviewed by Detective White, at Ngaruawahia, accused made a statement that the name under which she was now charged. Horrocks, was her maiden name. Her first husband was William Horricks, whom she married in 1901, but who died in South Africa during the Boer War. When she married Meredith, in 1912, at his suggestion she described herself as a spinster.

On coming to New Zealand, Meredith’s mother declared that her son had a wife living in England and Meredith confirmed this, but said that because of something his first wife had done she had no claim on him. While in England with the N.Z.E.F., Meredith had advised her that he was having a good time in England and had no intention of returning to New Zealand. Under the belief that her marriage with Meredith was nullified by the fact that Meredith had a wife living at Home, she married Earl in Auckland. The defence was that accused acted in the honest belief that her marriage with Meredith was a nullity. Horrocks went into the witness-box and confirmed the statements she made to the police. Meredith had written her insulting letters from England, she said, and as a result she advised him she was finished with him. She declared that letters, which Meredith had received from his first wife, and handed over to witness before he went to*’ the war, had been lost. After half an hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.