MARRIED OR UNMARRIED?

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1917, Page 6

MARRIED OR UNMARRIED?

IX THE EVES OP THE DEFENCE department. AN UNUSUAL CASE. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, P.M., Walter Sutton appeared on remand on a charge tiii.it being a reservist in the First Divifi'.iii, of the ?.iilitary Service Act. who to make application in accordance with station 33 of the said Act. did unlawfully fail to make application for emolnieut accordingly.

Sub-Inspector Mcllveney prosecuted, accui-e-d being defended by Mr. Bennett. The sub-inspector, outlining the case for the prosecution, stated that accused forwarded his National Registration curd to the Government Statistician under the {Military Service Acfof lftlo. 011 Oet-ober 30. KH.S, setting forth that he was a married man aged 33 years, with a wife wholly dependent to the extent of £-10 per annum. He directed particular attention to the fact that in his answers to the questions indicating willingness to serve in any expeditionary force accused had answered ' No," and it was reasonable to conclude, therefore, that he was opposed to rendering military service. On June 26 last he applied to the registrar of marriages at Opunake to be married. "While the-declara-tion was in course of preparation the •egistrar pressed him as to whether he was single or married, to which lie replied that he was a divorced man, the divorce having taken place on May 12. 191-3. This was over six months before ac had sent in his registration papers stating that his wife was dependent on lim. When asked for proof as to his divorce he could not give it, and the registrar refused to issue the authority to marry. On the following day he went to Hawcra, another marriage district, and there falsely declared that he had lived three days in the Hawcra marriage district, and made a solemn declaration under the Act that he was a bachelor. The certificate for the marriage was issued, and he was forthwith married, two telegraphists being called in as witnesses.

The sub-inspector submitted that the declarations made at Hawera were true and that the particulars submitted to the Government Statistician were false. His certificate of registration and copies of the marriage documents were put in. Under section 3S of the Military Service Act the onus was upon accused to establish that he had not supplied untrue particulars to the Statistician. Accused was in an unfortunate position. If he was a single man, he should have enrolled in the First Division. If not. he was a bigamist. Mr. Bennett submitted that defendant was a married man when he sent in his National Registration certificate, having been married in England 12 years ago, and was therefore entitled to lie enrolled in the Sc-cond Division. The mere fact that he was re-married within the "last six weeks was no evidence that he was not a married man. He went to Opunake to get married, with the object of saving a pfirl from disgrace, but the registrar refu=ed the license when the defendant said he was previously married and had tried to get a divorce, but did not have the. papers. He then Went to the registrar at Hawera. Capital was made out of the fact that he there described himself as a bachelor. A man who had onee been married could only re-marrv if he is a widower or if divorced, without committing bigamy, but there were circumstances when a man who was not | divorced could re-marry without being held liable for bigamy. 'Defendant had ■ been in New Zealand for eight years, during which time he had had no communication whatever with his wife, and considered that he was entitled to remarry. Mr. Crooke: You contend that he could hold that view if he deserted his wife* Mr. 'Bennett said he had not deserted his wife, tat had made efforts to get her to join him. Mr. Crooke said the onus was on defendant to prove he was married. The inference was that the statement was made to evade military service. Then there was the question that ho had described himself as a bachelor at Ilawera. His Worship further pointed out that if the facts as stated by accused were correct he was not entitled to call himself a bachelor if he wished to re-marry and risk the pains and penalties of bigamy. He was not in law re-married, but only not liable to be convicted of bigamy. Mr. Bennett submitted that he could not describe himself more aptly than as a bachelor under the circumstances.

Sub-Inspector Mellveney pointed out that under the Destitute Persons Act provision would have to be made for the j.*irl and child. 'To the Magistrate: Prisoner stated that 'When he put in the clause about the £4O-he understood that to mean , his savings. Though lie had not sent his I wife any money he thought that he i would be held liable.

Mr. Bennett suggested that the case should be remanded to enable evidence to he produced that the accused was married in England. He could produce two witnesses whit, though not actually present at the marriage, would swear that knew accused and his wife, for ■ years. Jf he had wilfully represented that his wife was dependent on him it was only a technical breach, and fould not affect life position as a reservist except in the case of an appeal or applies--tion for financial assistance.

| On the suggestion of Sub-Inspector Mcllveney the evidence of accused was takcll. ilo deposed that lie was aged :n. a Mboror residing at MTnaia. He had made u mistake in giving his age as ■'il at Hawenr. He was married in England 12 years ago at the registrar's office, Stourbridge, Worcestershire. His wife's maiden name yw Lily Elizabeth Crainpton. After living happily together for four years, accrued, who was a hauling contractor, had bad luck and come to New Zealand, his wife promising to follow when ho got settled down. They were living in Cradlev when he left England. After being here two months he wrote asking his wife tr* come out. but received a reply stating that she would never cross the water. He wrote again three months later and received a similar reply. He burned both letters four or five years ago. Hi? had corresponded with his sisters and father, and still did so retrularlv. During tlie pas ttwo or three years he had written to his fattier asking if He could get accused a divorce, but his father had replied that he could not find her or hear anything of her. Ho "wished to get married on this occasion, because lie thought it wa sliis duty to marry the girl and that he was'free to do so, as he had not sent a penny-to his wife

since she refused to come to New Zea' land.

The Magistrate: In the national registration certilieatc yon state that your wife was wholly dependent on you to the extent of .£4O per annum.

Accused: That was a mistake. The £4l) referred to was money 7 had saved. Continuing, accused stated that a man named Barlow had assisfeu him in making out the registration form. When he went to Opunake to get married. Mr. 1 Thompson, the registrar, who knew that he was married from the registration certificate, asked if he was divorced. Accused stated that he had tried for a divorce, but 'had not got the papers hack, and Mr. Thompson reHised to give him the necessary certilieatc. Two or three days afterwards accused went to 'Hawera, and, in reply to the registrar, said he had been three days in the district. and was a bachelor. He told the registrar he wished to get married to avoid disgracing the girl. He had a marriage certificate of his first marriage at home, but left it with his wife. There was no one in New Zealand who had been present at the ceremony, but Marshall RaVbould and iiis son William, now residing at Auroa, knew of the marriage. Marshall Uaybould came out a year after accused was married, and his son came out live years Titer. To Sub-Inspector iMellveney accused stated he had a photograph of his wife, hut 110 other document, lie did not sell his home up when he lived in England. His wife was living by herself in a rented house. He ha<T never written to the agent or landlord of tho house to ascertain her whereabouts. His father lived about a mile away from where accused's wife was living. He wrote to his father frequently. Accused had never been out of Worcestershire and had never stated that he was born in Birmingham.

The sub-inspector pointed out that at Hawera he had told the registrar he was born at Birmingham. Accused: Birmingham and Worcestershire are just the same. To a question, accused understood that Birmingham was the capital of Worcestershire.

The magistrate thought Worcester was.

He had not told Mr. Thompson at Opunake that he was divorced on May 12, 191 a, but he told "Mr. Thompson t,hat about two years ago he had written to his father asking h'm to get a divorce, lie thought Mr. Thompson commenced the preparation of a certificate, but when witness could not prove that he had tried for a divorce, the registrar did not complete the paper, which he handed to witness and witness burned. He did not know whether the registrar at Hawera asked if he were married. He was willing to go to the front at any time, and had always been willing to go, if lie could pass me doctor. He was sober when he filled in the registration form. in fact he had never been drunk in his life. He only had this wife dependent en him. When in England he gave his Wife all that he earned. His' present wife was wholly dependent on him—that was, she looked to him to keep her. Mr. Bennett: That is the whole secret, lie docs not know the meaning of the word.

'Sub-Inspector: I've no doubt he has been well drilled!

Mr. Bennett: I like your suggestion! lon had better subpoena the gaoler! I 0 the Sub-Inspector: He had 110 document to show, 'but only his own word, that he was married in England. The Suu-Inspector: Did you sign this (producing the Hawera certificate stating that lie was a bachelor) 1 Accused: I refuse to answer. I've said all that 1 know.

The Sub-Inspector: What is it that you refuse to answer? I put it to you now that you wfcre a single man at the time you told the Hawera registrar so. Accused: I was not.

, The Sub-Inspector asked accused whether, when he applied for the license at Hawera, he did not then know that his alleged other wife was still living. Mr. Bennett asked the Magistrate' to interfere, on the ground that accused should not be asked a question that might incriminate him in any future proceedings. The Sub-Inspector: It's for the witness to raise an objection, not you, Mr. Bennett. Don t lose your temper. I don't suit you. Mr. Bennett: Nor others, either. You would make a saint lose his temper! To the Sub-Inspector accused said he had burned tho letters from his wife six or seven months after his arrival here. The Sub-Inspector: Then why did you say you burned them five or six years ago?

Mr. Bennett: He did not say lie burned those letters. He may have' had other burnings. To the Sub-Tnspeetor: He asked his father to Ret a divorce because his sister said that his wife was carrying on with other people. He worked 'for Mr. McEwen and received 25s per week and liis keep.

The Sub-Inspector asked several questions to ascertain how accused arrived at the £4O which he estimated that he saved.

To Mr. Bennett: The Rayhoulds should recognise his wife from the photograph. Ho thought he had some letters at home from his father and sister.

Mr. Bennett then applied for a remand for a week, bail to be in accused's own recognisances.

The Sub-Inspector objected to a lengthy remand, and also askal for heavy bail, stating that the SolicitorGeneral had asked them to press for Jienalties in these military service cases.

A remand was granted until Monday at 11 a.m., bail being allowed, accused in his own recognisances of £25 and one surety of £25 or two of £l2 10s.