WIFE OR HOUSEKEEPER?

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 204, 27 August 1909, Page 2

WIFE OR HOUSEKEEPER?

— . » \ WOMAN'S STRANGE STORY. i I ALLEGED MOCK MARRIAGE. t t (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) i —. i GISBORNE, Thursday. j A claim for wages, heard at the 1 Magistrate's Court to-day, produced a 1 remarkable development. Elsie Linder- ( green, wife of a local butcher, sued < Nathaniel Burgess, boardinghouse-keep- ] er, for £45, wages alleged to have been 1 due to her as housekeeper. i Plaintiff alleged that she met defend- > ant, in Wellington in May of last year, i and there went through a mock mar- j riage, which she believed at the time to be genuine. She went through the marriage ceremony with defendant at Derby House (defendant's boarding- •'. house) at Wellington, the ceremony be- I ing performed by a man introduced to i her as "Dr. Henry." No witnesses ' were present, and, she did not know < they were a necessity, never having seen a wedding before in her life. The f "ceremony" took pla/'e on the Wednesday week after her engagement as ' housemaid. Burgess called her upstairs, i and she went up. She bid the "doctor" ' good morning, and Burgess said to her » that they would get married. She mado no reply, but simply looked at them. The "doctor" said he would ' marry them, and placed them side by side, taking a prayer book from his pocket. He told them to answer the | questions put to them, and she found ■ afterwards, by looking at a book, that it was the marriage ceremony. They both signed a blue paper that was handed to Burgess by the "doctor." After the "ceremony" she assumed the name of Burgess, but at defendant's own re- ' quest nothing was said about it until < after they got away from Wellington, ' as he had only been divorced a fort- ' night. They were living together as man and wife. Arriving at Gisborne, ' to take over the Dominion Hotel, she ) went under the name of Mrs. Burgess. ' On March 0 she found that the "ceremony" was qjgt genuine, and left Bur- ' gess. Subsequently she married a man named Lindergreen. Defendant admitted having lived with the woman as his wife, but denied that ' there was any "ceremony." He stated ■ that she came to him fi.-st as a boarder, and subsequently, after she had been to the Hospital, returned to live with him. When they came to Gisborne she assumed his name, living as his wife until March. As his wife, she was supplied with clothing and money. When she wanted money lie told her to help herself at the till. He gave her £25 in Wellington when staying at a boardinghouse, also several other sums here and in Wellington. There was no mock marriage ceremony, no papers were, signed, and plaintiff's story was false. When ho sold out of Derby House he saw he was doing wrong, and gave ber £25 to remain in Wellington, and separate. She offered the money back, and began crying and humbugging because he was leaving her, and that was why she came to Gisborne. The. case was adjourned until Saturday morning for legal argument.