R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 3015, 28 September 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THVRSDAY,

[Beforo S. von Stunner, R.M., and A, W, Eenall J.P.j

Joseph Applin was charged with making % falso declaration under the Marriage Apt pn tlje occasion of his marriage to Mai'lli* 'Appljh, widow pf hip deceased brother John,' at Masterton, in April, ' Inspector Thbmpsdhprosecuted, and Mr Beard defends.!!; The ovidence for; tho prosecution was that John Applin died ten years ago. .Subsequently his widow and Joseph Applin lived as man and wife Early this year they applied to get marrles \\ Carterton. 'The Registrar coii«ult.e.d tl)B Eegistrg-General and informed them that the 'marriage could not take' place. They'subse. fluently applied at Greytown with a Bjnijlar result. On the 17J>ii April they appliodat Masterton and having made a declaration that he know of no lawful impediment dofendai')t obtained a certificate, and was duly irumied" by Dipt/ BegistraVkibblewhite on 19th'April. '

'Martha.Stevens' a sjstor pf defondanj and Joseph Stevens her husband deposed to i>ejng wjtiiess' pf the marriage : of defendant witlf Martha Applin, at Mastei'toii. ■ Robert Applin gave evidence to the effect that his brother, tho defendant, and bis late brother John's wife were Ijvinstjogether as man and wife.. He that his brother Johii was He supposed hnij' to be married, He spelt W name'sometimes withono |'P," Bometimos witji'two.- '' JFames Henry_ JKbblewiiite; Deputy B,egistrarT of; births! mariiages and Aeatjjs" forjthe; .distiict'jfMasteton,'' deposei.j Defeiidant"'came';ifl;hi.B ofhee 17th April last fqj',the piirppse of gryihgribticejf bis He' -rnado/a deohjratip'n'thai; there Avasiib impedi-

sa|ed/hb!^r^ sinu'larity ;bf thefnames; ■/ ■ ifoijs. (£he:; iegia ter;; of the was produced;falßbaobpy"of^ oate-of tlie death of Joliu Appling).>^; '■• said -.lio, did uqt'ihtend to call-any wituesses, bit tlie'defe'iidant would bei':":piit'- iiitb the.box, Tho case was/the first' of: the kind thsli'ad oyer hem instituted inNewZoaland. .TheWholeipith;of the prosecution rested in thefact of tlie marriage/of the first parlies, John Applin and MarthV Thorby. 'The prosecution, f had; signally failed in proving thati^-Ifrwas^iil'very .well to say that they: lived together as man- and wife, but proof of the aotual marriage must be, forthcoming. In the absence of such a%tificatethere was no ground for such a prose'eutiou. Even if this •marriage were proved,' he contended.;that.his client: had not broken- the law,.by,marrying the widow of hia deceased brother. ■- : In j the ecclestical law, upon which the : marriage laws' were! based, the:: right 'of a .brother to. niaiTy.; his: sister-iu-law was upheld;, although in Levious 18, y.:, 16, reference was made of an apparently opposite character.. It really had reference; to the' time' prior to the husband's death; whilst further on, in Dueteronomy XXV, v.; 5, it was an actual 'injunction.-'to' a man in the event of'his brother dying and leaving no issue, to marry his :widow. 'He also referred, to,:the statement asrecordedin St. Matthew, where the Sadducoes stated tho suppositious, case of a woman- whose husband died, and she afterwards alternately .married: the other six brothers That was a fair reason for supposing that it was not unlawful in those days to marry a brother's widow. If it was consistent, right, and legal in 'those days,, it was surely the sarno now. It was also esseutially.necesßary, for the.success of the proseoution that it should be shown that his client did-knowingly and wilfully make a wrong declaration. The accused had only declared, that'there was no relationship existing. ', There was a great difference between relationship and' ah alliance, and as a matter of fact his olient did not consider-he was doing an illegal act, and he held no ; jury would convict and consequently there was no prima facie evidence in the case to warrant its being sent before a jury, and.therefore the information, ho claimed, should bo dismissed.

The Bench hold iM'a prima facie case, had been made put.. Accused reserved his defence and was committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, Wellington, Bail was allowed in two surities of £25 each/and himself in £IOO. -

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28th. Breaches of Stamp Am,.Sergeant Price v. 0. J. Hare.Breaoh of Stamp Act, by placing a defaced penny stamp on a receipted bill. The information was laid under the Post Office Act, 1881. Mr Bunny appeared for the defence. For the prosecution Harry "Budd, laborer, gave evidence as to receiving on the 20th August, a stamped receipt from Mr Hare, The receipted account produced in Court, he witnessed accused sign. ...''•. By Mr Bunny: He had been in accused's employjor some., time, and denied that accused had complained of his conductsv.They, settled up 'oil the morning of August'2oth. Before receipting the account, Mr Hare went out of the room to procure .a stamp and then came in again and initialed it. At that time he did not notice anything wrong with the stamp, : but subsequently his attention was called to its being defaced,, by Mr John Oado on -whose suggestion he also took the stamp and showed it to Mr Bagge, the postmaster and the Sergeant, Shortly after, witness found the stamp to. be a defaced one, lie went to Mr Hare and pointed out that the stamp had already been used, Accused denied Ibis and dofied. him or anyone else to prove it,' Witness admitted he had a" down" on acaccused and informed against him out of spite.

By the Sergeant! Ho'also had a " down" on accused because he would not pay him his wages, but made him •' take itout" in goods. John Bagge, postmaster, referred to the witness Budd coming and shewing bini a receipted account. To the best of his knowledge and belief the stamp had been previously obliterated and passed' through the Post Office, He could not recogniso by the stamp what offioe it had passed through,but could distinctly recogniso the obliterated bars. Did not think it possible for an imprint of a defaced letter stamp, if kept in the same pocket to produce an imprint similar to that shown in the present instance'. Hjs Worship at {his point called; attention to a most improper step taken by the accused in this matter, Last evening be received a letter written in acoused's hand writing, stating the stamp had been previously used, but he (accused) thought there was no harm in using it. on the receipt, His Worship spoke'very strongly of acoused's action in writing. to him, but said be put it down to his not knowing bolter. He always made it a strict rule where people tried to prejudice a case by writing to take tho first opportunity of making it public. .

Mr Bunny expressed surprise at his client doing such a foolish act. If he took upon himself to do suoh stupid things hfi'mus.t. puffer ; tho consequonoos, He obuld hardly perceive why a person, for the sake of a penny could put themselves in such jeopardy and hoped the Court would take a lenient view of'the case as he did not tl)ujk it was done with a fraudulent intent.

Constable Salmon gave evidence as to interviewing Mr Bagge and ac eused.'' . '•■" "■

.After accused had made his statement His Worship taking a lenient view of the paseand it being the first offence inflicted a fine of £5 and costs 17s, the amount tp be paid within fourteen days gr tlje ijsual alternative. ' '■'.■ "■ ■'• .

.. §ergli t Pricey, Arthur IJ,Bunny. I Defendant was chafged with a. breach' of t|ie Stamp Duty, Aot, mi pleaded : not guilty, ' G. 8, W, Dalrympkv commission agent, stated that on tho Brd September ho sent a letter to defendant, enclosing a cheque for H ISs, being niqney due in the case of Dalrymple v, : of witness.. A day or two after he receiV?*-, alettflr.froiii MrStony,iivwhich'lie said et i received your letter of yester. ilayVdate, enclosing cheque tw £i\ ;'lßg,i.n which.you state: thajt you will setfe with', the, wituesses:;: yourself,'' of i 8 8s :wto > also paj'd-'aistrajfjt would' follow,'' WitiiQss ■ thoreupori proceadelj Jojhfl' Court; i-aiid ;iodged

SfJSSi*??s s *ii , V'i'iS^yi'i%w'W*itS!* |pelf%Hptdid;^ ribticcd tliat=.tlielet't evbadiio st'aiipl : ;~ Josef)liK a EVeetiij:: clerk vfof-v the ceiiaiu'reeei js jo : tlie.'offiaa J't6; : ;sbow; tLemonios>lw!:M : pdiCftWitMs. tool? tUo read i Vaftei* whioli, he.passeditbver-toDalrymplej say-' itie at-any' rate." jDalryniple replied,' 1 ' Yes you do.;: It's;a /receipt vfor 7 .part" of the can't take; it as{a receipt; / tli"efe's:ri6 stampon '£" -i :' /Dakymple-Jrejomed,' "That's just exactly what, I want'to ' call.your / attention to ;■: there's^; receipt without i stamp ,s:;' Witness 5 : isaid, wellj-I'li :% take : ;it; a'lid w.e'll have an information laid." Shortly'; afterwai^ls v he / handed the; ,lettertotheSergeant;if:'■.■■■ ■'/ ' •; I: For the rdetence," lir~Buiihy;re- ; ferred to Section .121 of the Stamp Act, and maintained that no breach of the Act Had'been committed. He; ' had merely acknowledged the receipt of the letter containing a cheque. He had not. acknowledged [.payment ;■ by cheque" of anysum, mi claimed that his letter :>vaß not a receipt-at all,; It? was a oommpn custom to/acknowledge the'recapt"of/bheques' in the maimer be had-doner' /

Judgment was .reserved "until • the !othOctober.;- r^\-v : : v/:>'■;•■•