A CLERICAL BIGAMIST.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 480, 14 June 1890, Page 4

A CLERICAL BIGAMIST.

DR. McLEOD FOUND GUILTY. REMANDED FOR SENTENCE. At the Sydney Quarter Sessions on May 30th, before Judge Forbes, John McLeod, M.D., formerly practising at Woollahra, and recently arrested at Napier, New Zealand, was placed for trial on a charge of bigamy. The circumstances surrounding the case are by this time pretty familiar. The accused, before taking to the practice of medicine, was a minister of the Rresbyterian Church of Eastern Australia. His career has been a varied one, as will be partly gathered from the evidence tendered in the case under notice. Some few months since he was arrested at Napier, New Zealand, where he bad commenced the practice of his profession, and brought over in custody to Sydney, and the charge being investigated at the Water Police Court, resulted in accused’s commital for trial.

MoLeod was charged that having on July 13th, 1872, married Mary Manson at Darling Point, in New South Wales, while his wife was still alive, he did, on May Bth, 18S9, at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, U.S.A., marry Mary Elizabeth Cameron. A plea of not guilty was entered, Mr W. L. Merewether prosecuted for the Crown and Mr F. W. Gibson (instructed by Messrs Allen arid Allen) appeared for the accused. THE FIRST WIFE. Mrs Mary McLeod stated that she was the widow of Mr Manson, oE the firm of Messrs. John Fraser and Co., when she married accused. Her maiden name was Mary Blair Ewan. Under her first husband’s will she received £1,600 a year, but there was a provision that in case of a remarrage she would forfeit £l,lOO a year of this. Accused married her on July 13, 1872, at Winslow, Darling l J oint, the late Rev. Dr. McGibbon being the officiating clergyman. Her brother, Mr Jas. Ewan, the late Dr. J. Fraser Ewan and Air Jas. Watson were present at the marriage. Though by her marriage with McLeod her income was reduced to £SOO a year, she had £I,BOO to come to her. They went to live at Grafton, where accused was stationed as a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia. McLeod got the £I,BOO from her. His conduct was nob very good towards her till he got the money. After remaining at Grafton six months they sold the furniture, most of which was hers, and went to Scotland. The accused was very desirous of visiting his native place, Tosta, in the is'atid of Lewis. After staying at Tosta some weeks accused went to Canada and witness remained in Scotland. Eventually he wrote bo her to join himin Canada,and she did so,remaining there four years. His conduct was only fairly good. He took possession of her income, investing it in land for his frionds, as he said. They went from Canada to Glasgow, and on his health failing moved to the island of Tyree, stayed there twelve months, and then shipped at Liverpool for Auckland, New Zealand, and subsequently came on to Sydney. His conduct was then so bad that she had to leave him. That would be about the year 1887. He thrashed her over the head in order to compel her to give him £750, the residue of her late husband’s estate. She gave him £250 and desired to keep £SOO for herself. In Auckland there was reason to complain of bis conduct towards a servant of hers. After parting she stayed away from her husband for about six months and then rejoined him at his request. They went to live at Rocky Mouth, on the Clarence River, and there accused was kinder to her than he had formerly been. In two or three months they went to San Francisco and on to Boston, and there he said he would go on to Colorado and get a divorce. Ke wanted her to settle £2OO or £3OO a year on him whether they remained married or not. Under threats he forced her to write certain letters or promissory notes, and then they went to New York and to London. In the latter place accused was not at all kind, and she left him there. Because she refused to copy letters he had composed, giving him power to receive her next half-year’s income, he thrashed her over the head and then she resolved to leave him for ever. That was on June 25th, 1888. Remaining five weeks longer in England, she returned to Sydney and had lived here since. In January, 1889, she received a letter from the accused. It was despatched from San Francisco, saying her desertion of him had ruined his reputation and profession, and asking her to send him £4,000, upon the interest of which he could live. On the following December ho again wrote to her for assistance. At that time he was in Sydney. That was after his second marriage. Knowing he was in Sydney, she obtained a separation order, and had since instituted proceedings to obtain a divorce. Last January he wrote to her saying the tie between them had been for ever severed and she ought not to use his name any longer, but he wanted bo know what she was going to do with the unpaid p.ns. she had given him. The second wife had been residing with witness part of the time since the former’s arrival from America.

By Mr Gibson : The £l,lOO a year she lost through her second marriage was divided between her relatives and those of her late husband. The £I,BOO she had at the time of the marriage was in the hands of trustees and was paid to accused in two or three instalments.