FOUND GUILTY OF BIGAMY

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24568, 17 May 1945, Page 6

FOUND GUILTY OF BIGAMY

DEFENCE OF AMNESIA ADVANCED

ACCUSED GIVES EVIDENCE Amnesia, a complete loss of memory, was advanced as the main defence in the Supreme Court In Christchurch yesterday when George O’Neil Dore (Mr D. W. Russell) pleaded not guilty to a charge of committing bigamy, In that having married Jean Tubman at Timaru on October 25, 1933, he went through a form of marriage with Shirley Gertrude Anderson at Hamilton on March 22, 1944. For the defence, the accused was put In the witness box and under strong cross-examination he maintained that up till four years ago he had no knowledge of his previous existence.

The jury, after 30 minutes’ retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty. Dore was remanded for sentence. ' In outlining the case for the Crown, Mr A. W. Brown said Dore had lived with his first wife until 1939, when he just “faded Into the blue.’* His wife sued for maintenance, but he could not be found. Accused was arrested In March of this year under the name of Alan Brownlie. In his form of marriage he gave no particulars of his previous life. When interviewed by the police Dore could remember nothing until he found himself in Greymouth and his name Brownlie.

Evidence on the lines of that heard in the Magistrate’s Court was given by Jean Dore (wife of accused), Shirley Gertrude Anderson (with whom accused went through a form of marriage), Robert William Tubman (best man at the wedding), Norman Thompson, detec-tive-sergeant. and John Highsted, a police constable.

Shirley Gertrude Anderson, crossexamined by Mr Russell, said Dore, with whom she had gone through the form of marriage as Brownlie as she knew hlpa, suffered from headaches; and because of this was away from work at intervals. .

To his Honour: He never told me where he went to school. I did not ask him. When I asked him about his previous life he just put me off. When I asked him about the past he changed the subject. Social Security Book

Norman Thompson, detective-sergeant, gave details of having interviewed accused, who had been brought to the police station by his relatives. When asked about his social Security book he said he could not find it. His Honour: You Inquired about his social security book? Witness: Yes. His Honour: Did you Inquire when he was registered under the name of Brownlie? Witness: 1 don’t remember. Inquiries were made about Alan Brownlie, and he had registered under that nameHis Honour at this stage decided to take the adjournment to give the prosecution a chance to produce the book. On resuming, Detective-Sergeant Thompson said Dore had registered in 1930 and had continued payments until 1937, when they ceased. Accused could not be found, and he was entered In the Police Gazette for maintenance On March 23, 1939, Alan Brownlie registered under the act, and said that he had taken up residence on January 6 of that year, and gave the name of his employer as A. Chambers, Ashhurst. Accused in Witness Box

For the defence, Mr Russell called the accused, George O’Neil Dore, who said that he could not recall anything that had happened more than four years ago. He had awakened to a new life in Greymouth and he did not know how he came to be at Greymouth. In 1945 he heard a rumour that he was not Alan Brownlie but a man named Dore. He then went to Auckland and saw the police and a solicitor He wanted to prove his Identity. At Rotorua he was Interviewed by the police as to his military obligations. They told him he came from Australia. His Honour; Did you agree with them.

Accused: Ycs« To Mr Brown Dore said that In 1941 he was In a hotel In Greymouth. The first, he could remember was when the proprietor’s wife called him Mr Brownlie. His Honour: Just as If you were a new-born baby? Accused: Yes. In answer to further questions, accused said this was the first thing In his life he could remember. He did not tell anyone about his predicament, and his sudden awakening. He did npt even know he was in Greymouth until he saw the name on the station. His Honour: But did you know where Greymouth was—whether It was somewhere In Siberia or In another part of the world? Dore said he did not know. In answer to questions by his Honour as to how he learned to read, and had he suddenly Inherited the gift of reading after his new birth, he said he knew the things he read In the paper, and he could understand, though he never remembered his previous life. Up to that stage he had never heard of the war. He knew buses and motor-cars. His Honour: Why didn’t you see a doctor? Accused: That Is the only thing that beats me If I had, I wouldn’t be in this mess now. It didn’t strike me to go to a doctor. „ . Asked why he did not come to Christchurch Instead of going to Auckland to place the matter before the police, Dore said he did not come to Christchurch because If there was trouble It would not be In the papers down here. His wife s people lived In Christchurch. John William Bridgman, a qualified medical practitioner, said he. had made a thorough examination of the accused, and while he had set out to ’’trap" Dore he had failed and found no evidence of malingering. There were cases of loss of memory (amnesia), and also of dual personality. It was quite possible that there could be cases of complete forgetfulness and also of temporary loss of memory.

, An Altered Personality His Honour: Now this Is a case of dual personality—he Is nothing and then he is single? Dr, Bridgman: An altered personality would be better. Mr Brown was granted permission to call Dr. A. C. McKlllop, who said he had examined Dore. and considered the accused was not suffering from amnesia. Mr Russell said the whole conduct of the accused suggested Innocence of the crime of bigamy. In every move his actions had been clean and above board. He had gone before the public openly in his different Jobs and when a rumour reached him he straightway went to the police and asked them to help him to establish his identity. It was a straight case of amnesia and no suggestion of criminality in the actions of the prisoner.

His Honour, summing up, said the facts were plain and the evidence clear. It was the fact that a second form of marriage had taken place. It was not a question of a wandering tramp who had loss of memory, but a man with a settled place In the community. When he went astray the police were advised and he was advertised tor and a warrant issued for his arrest. The Jury could Imagine •a man whose mind had left him and he wandered round, homeless, bereft. He would be a conspicuous object. The Crown was not asked to prove motive. The fact was that this man disappeared in a way In which It was very difficult to do. He turned up in 1939 and registered himself two years before he woke up to the fact that he was Alan Brownlie. One not Insignificant aspect was that he was 31 when he went away from home, but five years later he was 49 years, well beyond the military age. A man who did not even know himself, knew his age. He would leave the rest to the jury, which should not have a very difficult task.