CHARGE OF BIGAMY

Taranaki Daily News, 24 November 1926, Page 13

CHARGE OF BIGAMY

SUPREME COURT TRIAL FALSE PRETENCES ALSO ALLEGED. HEARING NOT YET FINISHED. Charged with committing bigamy and making a false declaration when he went through the form of marriage with a second woman at Opunake in 1925, Samuel Julian stood his trial in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday before the Chief Justice, the Hon. C. P. Skerrett. The case was still proceeding when the Court adjourned last night until 10 o'clock this morning. The following jury was empanelled: G. R. White (foreman),. T. P. Rielly, W, Sampson, R. Sinclair, J. S. Wilson, A. Sinclair, S. H. Phipps, W. Bent, F. E. Rogers, A. Twine, A. J. Lees, and W. J Richardson. CASE FOR THE CROWN. In outlining his case to the jury, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Westonl stated that it was submitted that, on July 10, 1919, at St. Anstell, in the county of Cornwall, England, Julian married Violet Minnie Real in the Church of England, and that on December 9, 1925, he went through the form of marriage with Ivy Gladys Iggulden before the registrar of marriages at Opunake; also, that he wilfully made a false declaration for the purposes of procuring a registrar’s certificate of marriage by falsely declaring that he was a bachelor. Llewellyn Etherington, a solicitor of the Supreme Court both in England and in New Zealand, produced a copy of the certificate recording the marriage of accused with Violet Minnie Real when in England, and certified that such a certificate or declaration was a usual way of recording marriages at Home. Constable Longbottom, stationed at Inglewood, stated that after the war accused and his English wife came to live at Rugby Road. The couple did not get on well together, and after Mrs. Julian had complained to witness several times about the way in which her husband was maltreating her, witness advised her to apply for a separation. She did this, and on July 23, 1920, at the Inglewood Court, a separation order was granted to her on the grounds of cruelty and failure to maintain. There had been one child of the marriage, and for this child Mrs. Julian was allowed £1 5s a week. maintenance. Accused was present at the Court, and during the hearing of the petition Mrs. Julian gave evidence that she had been married to accused in England on July 16, 1919. ORDER NOT COMPLIED WITH. In January, 1921, proceedings were taken against accused for failure to comply with the order, and subsequently a re-arrangement was made as to payments. In March, Mrs. Julian left Inglewood with her child, having stated that she intended going home to Eng land. In May, 1923, witness interviewed accused because a charitable institution in England had written to him inquiring for particulars as to the maintenance order in force in Inglewood against accused. Under cross-examination witness said that the last time he had seen Mrs. Julian was in March, 1921, and the last tinre he had heard about her was when inquiries from England were made in 1923. Emily Cossey, of Junction Road, gave evidence as to the receipt by her from England of two letters from Violet Julian, the second of which was written when the All Blacks were at Home. Under cross-examination witness admitted that in the second letter Mrs Julian had asked witness not to mention to Julian that she had written, and had indicated that if Julian thought she was dead and married again she would thus be able to “get some of her own back.’’ Elizabeth Ibbotson gave evidence of identification of the signature of Violet Julian to a letter purported to have been written from England in June, 1926. HAD HEARD WIFE WAS DEAD. To Mr. Bennett: Since a letter in 1922, when she was told that Mrs. Julian’s child was dead, witness had not heard any more about Mrs. Julian, except a rumour that she was dead. To His Honour: She could not say where she had heard the rumour about Mrs. Julian’s death, for a number of people had heard the same rumour, which was fairly common property. She had never, however, heard Julian himself say that he had received news of hie wife’s death from England. Ernest Frederick Loesch, garage proprietor, of Opunake, said that about two days before accused’s marriage in Opunake in December, 1925, accused came to him and asked for a day off in order to attend a wedding. Witness asked whether it was accused’s own wedding he was going to, and the latter told him to wait and see. At the same time he asserted that his first wife was dead, and told witness that he had proof of this in the form of two letters from an aunt of Mrs. Julian’s in England. He had always given witness the impression that he was sincere in his statements and belief that his first wife was dead. ACCUSED’S OPUNAKE MARRIAGE. Ivy 7 Iggulden, who gave her age as 18 years, said she first met accused at a boarding-house at Opunake in November,

1925. She kept company with him and later he proposed marriage to her. On December 9, 1925, they were married at the Opunake Post Office with her father’s consent. In March, 1926, witness heard that accused was a married man with hie wife still living whem he went through the form of marriage with her, and after questioning him further on several subsequent occasions she left accused. Under cross-examination, witness admitted that accused had told her when he was courting her that he had been married, and had had one child, but he said that both the wife and child were dead. William Alfred Iggulden, labourer, residing at Te Kiri, and the father of the previous witness, said that in March, 1926, he heard that accused was already •married when he went through the form of marriage with his daughter, and he interviewed accused about it. Accused said that he had had letters from England indicating that his wife was dead, but no proof was forthcoming and witness did not press for proof. Evidence as to an interview with the accused prior to his arrest was given by Detective Meiklejohn, who said that accused stated that he had received information about his wife dying of blood poisoning following on a mosquito bite. The case for the Crown concluded when Constable Clouston and Ida Muriel Edwards gave evidence regarding correspondence between England and New Zealand bearing on the matter. - CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. In opening his defence, Mr. A. A. Bennett reminded the jury that the onus was on the Crown to prove (1) that there had been a legal marriage in England between Violet Minnie Real and Samuel Julian; (2) that accused was the Samuel Julian married in England; (3) that the first wife was still alive on December 9, 1925; and (4) that accused went through a legal form of marriage with Ivy Iggulden at Opunake. As a matter of fact, the defence admitted that accused had married in England in 1919, but. the Crown had brought no direct evidence to prqve that accused’s first wife was alive on December 9, 1925. There was no evidence of the existence of accused’s first wife since the year 1921. He wished to point out that if accused could prove that on Deciffnber 9, 1925, he honestly believed with reasonable grounds for his belief, that his first wife was dead, he must be acquitted. Accused would give evidence to show that he had been in receipt of letters from well-known friends in England to say that ms wife was dead. If the jury considered that he was sincere and acted in good faith, then they must acquit him. ACCUSED GIVES EVIDENCE. After detailing the circumstances prior to his marriage in England, his subsequent return to New Zealand, and the separation because of temperaments that did not fit in, accused said that he gave his wife’s solicitor £6O to help pay her passage Home. Since then he had not written to her, nor received any communication. from her. On March 9, 1922. he was told by Mrs. Cossey that ac cording to a letter she had received from his wife, the child had died. Describing the contents of two letters he subsequently received, accused said that in one it was stated that his wife had died two days previously through blood poisoning following on a mosquito bite. She was stated to have died in May, 1923. The second letter was

from a Mrs. Richards, and conveyed the same information. In order to corroborate this information, accused wrote to •the police at Plymouth inquiring for his wife’s whereabouts. He receive! ■

no reply, however, and assumed that his wife had died. Accused also wrote to the Registrar-General at Somerset House asking for information, but re- ■ ceived no reply.