HUSBAND AS UNDERTAKER.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17227, 18 August 1921, Page 11

HUSBAND AS UNDERTAKER.

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY.

(press association telegram.)

AUCKLAJNI>. August 17,

4 .An extraordinary story was told .at the Supreme Court. to-day, .. disclosing; some : peculiar circumstances" surround-- 1 j jrig.tho burial of an old woman who'died I ■at a short .time ago. The husband, Edward Mortimer Gillam Vras-charged with having made/ aifalse statement, to the local l Registrar of 'Deaths regarding the supposed withness o£; the buriatj which the widower admitted;

Counsel for prisoner said Maurice was oil. ignorant man,:and had bungled the ;instructions given.him by the Registrar. He had • failed to understand what he was told,'arid in completing .the death certificate subsequent to the funeral got a man to sign the document as,, having witnessed the burial. At a later stage Maurice had declared to the Registrar and other officers that the man had seen the burial. As a matter of fact, the "witness" had been in the cemetery prior fo the funeral.' He had seen ari ; open grave and afterwards had seen a closed grave. The Probation Officer's report was in prisoner's favour. Maurice had no previous convictions, and counsel thought the Court should take into consideration the fact that the accused had actually been in custody for the last twelve days; ' '•'*.■, His Honour: I notice .he conducted the funeral himself. That might mean poverty. . , ', Counsel: My instructions are he desired to.save undertaker's expenses. The Crown Prosecutor said it might lave been on account?of poverty t or it might "have' been on account w "pure callousness. It appeared that when the prisoner was informed a death certificate was required, he demurred at first because of the distance he-would have to fetch a doctor. He arrived at the .cemetery with- the coffin, but without a and no burial service was read" and there were no witnesses othei than himself. The coffin was simply put/into the grave and covered up. Afterwards he found he had no man to certify to the burial, and as he had to have witnesses, he procured the (ygnatuires |>i< two panaris whom he found there. One of them had actually wanted to attend-the funeral, but when he asked prisoner the time of the burial, Maunfce had replied that he did not know as he was busy with the creamery. That had a bearing on his attitude or mind as to whether it was a case oi pre ignorance, or whether he simply did not; care. • His Honour said there were no cirucmstances showing any object for concWment. The object of the law was to prevent secret burials of persons who mieht have been done away with by Tome crime. The offence was not a light matter. Had prisoner .been found gSilty after trial, lie would probably have lad a sentence or a very severe LeimpVsed. The case however, would be met bv a fine of £lO, and costs of the prosecution £4 2s.