STAGED “MARRIAGE”

Taranaki Daily News, 25 January 1921, Page 5

STAGED “MARRIAGE”

COUNTRY GIRL DUPED. MAN POSES AS CLERGY. A REMARKABLE STORY. j By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. An extraordinary story of a staged “marriage,” whereby a country girl was duped by an Auckland hairdresser, with the result that the alleged false registration of two children followed, was told in the Police Court to-day. Mr. Poynton, S.M., presided. The “wife,” Edith McKay, pleasant looking young woman, was charged with having wilfully made false statements on December 9, 1918, and on February 23, 1920, at the registry office, Auckland, when registering her two children. A plea of not guilty was tendered The first witness was the “husband,” Albert Edward Neary, St. James Street, who admitted that he was legally married in 1909, and that he had neither been divorced nor knew of any divorce proceedings being instituted. In January, 1918, he went through a false marriage with accused, when there was a “theatrical” marriage ceremony. His Worship: Was it on the stage?

ACTING AS PARSON. Witness • explained that a friend, although not a minister, ,secured a surplice, and witness and accused proceeded to the man’s house at Onehunga, where a “wedding” took place, the/ friend posing as the officiating clergyman. After the ceremony the girl believed she was married. She knew of her husband’s previous' marriage, but he had cleared away that obstruction by saying he had been divorced six months previously The couple lived in Ponsonby. No documents were signed, but accused made no inquiries on that score. There were two children, a boy and a girl. The accused registered the births, and so far as he knew the children were born in November, 1918, and in December, 1919. Afterwards the young woman told him how she had registered the first child, and witness told her she was mad. He then informed her of the false marriage. She was “rather wild” when she heard the news for the first time, but she decided to continue to live with him. He made no inquiries, and was not aware of the second registration untjl Detective Knight came on the scene. Cross-examined by Mr. Matthews, witness admitted that the certificates were quite correct, except that they stated That the parents were married. Accused had been a good “wife” in spite of the trick he pihyed her. She was a country girl unaccustomed to town life and innocent-minded. He did not regard his children as illegitimate. Witness added that it was in the beginning of 1915 that he parted from his real wife. His association with the accused had been absolutely clean, apart from the absence of a marriage ceremony. THE GENUINE WIFE. Clementia Neary, the genuine wife, gave evidence that no divorce proceedings between herself and her husband had ever taken jJace. She and her child had not lived with Neary since 1916. About a year ago witness called on accused, who informed her that she was married to Neary. Mr. Matthews said the defence did not suggest that Mrs. Neary had anything to do. with the bringing of the proceedings. Detective Knight read a statement made by accused, in which she stated that she met Neary in 1917 and kept company with him till January, 1918. when a “marriage” took place. She believed she was genuinely married, up to a certain date. The defence was reserved and the young woman was committed for trial to the Supreme Court, £25 bail being allowed. The Magistrate remarked that the case was very bad: the girl had been imposed upon shockingly.