BIGAMY CHARGE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XL, Issue 9229, 13 February 1920, Page 6

BIGAMY CHARGE

AN ASHBURTON MARRIAGE. ACCUSED ACQUITTED. (For Press Association.) ' s CHIiISTCHURCH, February 12. The- crhiiui.;; uf the Supremo Court were resumed this morning, before Ills Honour Mr Justice Herdmaji. Mr A. T. Donnelly was tbe Crown Prosecutor Agnes Mary Roland, who was defended by Mr F. Wilding, was charged with having married Gilbert Smalley at the Registry Office at Ashburton. on February 12 1910, while lier husband, William" Joseph Roland, to whom she was married at Gisborne on November 29, 1906, was still alive. Mr Donnelly outlined the case tor the Crown, stating that accused was charged! with bigamy, having gone through the marriage ceremony with another man while her husband was still alive. It appeared that accused, lived with her first husband for several years, but that on account of his treatment of her she had left him in 1911. Accused had told 1 the police ■ that" she believed that her first husband (Roland) had gone to the front with the Ninth Reinforcement, and that he had been killed). The question for the jury to consider was as to whether accused had taken any steps to ascertain- from the military authorities whether Roland was dead.. It was strange that the iNinth Reinforcements left on February y, 1916, and that on February 12, 1916, ■accused) should have gone through the marriage ceremony at Ashburton with Smailey.

Cai'oline Koland, mother of AVilliam Joseph lioland, gave evidence as to the marriage of her son and. accused. To Mr Wilding: She at no time heard auy report that her son had been killed.'

To His Honour: She did hear that lier son was ill. It was. 11 years since she had heard anything trom her daughter-in-law. William Joseph .Roland was her only son. diaries Findlay, a police constable stationed at Mosgiel, stated that he knew accused as Mrs Smalley. She had told him in an interview that she was married in 1906 to Roland, but that owing to Dad treatment she left him. Keveral years iaer. Accused lad said chat she beleved Roland had i_;oue to the war with the Ninth Uemfoi'cements, and had been told that he tad been killed!.' She _ said she. married Smalley believing Koland to be .-.Vad. To Mr Wilding: Accused seemed surprised and upset when he rrod'iced a letter from her first husband.

Stewart McLean, a motor rueenatiir:, living at Lmwood, stated that he lift New Zealand with a portion of Ihe Ninth Reinforcements on February 12, 1916. William Joseph Roland left on the sa.me occasion. Gilbert Smalley, a labourer, living at. Wingatui, -gave evidence as to marrying accused] at the Registry Office, Ashburton, on February 12, 1916. Accused had said she w v as a widow, but gave no explanation a<s to when or how her husband died.

To Mr Wilding: He had no doubt fchat accused was a widow, and the knowledge that accused's first husband was a live came as a great shock.

John Downie, farmer, Ghertsey., stated that accused was his daughter. He witnessed the marriage with Smalley. To Mr Wilding: In 1912 accused ci.ime to live with him, and there was no communication with the Roland fiimiry until the end of last year". In 1014 his daughter told him that she Ueiird that her husband had died at Auckland as the result of an operaLion. Witness never doubted that Roland! was dead. He knew that a Roland was killed in the war. The name was the same.

This closed the case for the Crown.

Accused, giving evidence on her own behalf, stated that from 1912 she never had any communication with her husband 1. She left her husband because he ill-troa^ed her. She never had a penny from liim. Tn .1914 witness had a letter from a. friend in Gisborne Kt-cting that Roland had died at A.ucklfind as the result of an operation. She made no inquiries, but had no reason to doubt that Roland 1 was dead. The first witness heard as to Lioland being alive was the receipt of papers from llofend suing for divorce on the grounds of desertion. The proceedings had been heard and a decreo nLsi grunted. Mr Wilding addressed the jury, and liis Honour summed up, stating that provided it conk! bo shown that them were reasonable grounds to supposo that her husband were dead the party •■ a marrying was not guilty of tho '■riiiK.- of bigamy. Accused" had bcoii Nii.ir.vTi to hv an honest woman and n good woman, jind there was no reason to doubt her when she said that she re-ma Tried believing her husband to be dead. The jury retired at 2.27 o'clock. nnd jetiuiied at 2.45 o'clock with a renlici, 0 -l: not ■ guilty, the foreman stating that the jury wished to ask liis Honour to direct that the accused left the Court without a stain upon lie;- character. Accused was then discharged.