ALLEGED BIGAMY.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 April 1918, Page 2

ALLEGED BIGAMY.

WOMAN'S MATRIMONIAL VENTURES A young women known aa Ada Rosina Gooch and a man site went through a form of marriage with named George Cecil William Gooch, were arrainged before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., at Wellington on Wednesday. The female defendant was charged with bigamy, and the male defendant with having married her when he knew that she was a married, womanInspector Marsack, who conducted the prosecution *on behalf of the police, said that the female defendant was married to a man named Stokes on February 15, 190<J. In 1911 .Stokes discovered that the defendants were living together at Aishhurst. Divorce proceedings were taken, and a decree absolute was granted. When Arthur E. Stokes, the former husband of Ada Gooch, was called, Mr. H. F. O'Leaiy objected to his evidence* on the ground that he could not give evidence of circumstances when he became her husband. He admitted that the circumstances were peculiar, as the parties were divorced, but he held the evidence was still not admissible.

The magistrate said that he presumed that counsel referred to the proving of the marriaee. If so. b« would note the objection, but did not agree with the contention.

Arthur E. Stokes, dairyman, Mangaweka, said he w«s married to the female defendant at the Registrar's office, Wellngton, at 2 o'clock on the afternoon of February 15, 1906. Consequent uto something he had heard he left his wife two hours after the marriage, and never lived with her. Later he went to a place known as Siberia, near Ashhurst, in 1911, and found both tta defendants living together, and he served a citation in divorce against him. The mate defendant was known to him.

To Mr. O'Leary: With the exception of £l, which he gave his wife the day they were married, lie had not paid her anything since, and had never bothered about her.

Ada Lepper, of Petone, deposed that the female defendant was her daughter'. Early in 1906 she received a letter from her stating that she had married Arthur Stokes, who was a nephew of witness'. Subsequently teh defendant sent another letter from Timaru asking witness'. Subsequently the defendant sent thur Stakes was trying to find out things about her for the purpose of getting a divorce. Both the defendants then'eame to witness' home, and later they went to live at Ashhurst. Goo/h said he l»d married her daughter at Timaru, and expected the police to put a hand on his | shoulder, but her daughter said she was not afriad Witness said she had burnt a copy of her daughter's marriage certificate to Stokes at the instance of Gooch. Gooch and her daughter travelled' from Timaru under the name of Mr. and Mrs. Fry. To Mr. O'Leary: Was not present when lier daughter was married to Stokes or to Gooch. Constable W. Tricklebank gave evidence as to interviewing Mrs Gooch, who. when questioned, said Ae v was formerly Mrs. Stokes. The defendants were respectable persons, and resided in a house that Gooch had purchased at Petone. Gooch was a hard-working man. The defendants had a boy and girl. Both the defendants, who pleaded not guilty, were committed to the Supremo Court for trial, bail being allowed ii. their own recognisances of £SO each.'