ALLEGED BIGAMY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 87, 12 April 1923, Page 9

ALLEGED BIGAMY

MAN WHO BELIEVED HIMSELF ( DIVORCED. (11 JJLEdKAfB.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) DUNEDIN, 11th April.. In the City Police Court to-day, Albert Edward Bhmdell, a, tram conductor, was charged with having on 25th December, 1920, at Dunedin,' having been previously married to Louisa Elizabeth Noble, gone through a form of marriage with, Grace Agnes Sharp, thereby committing bigamy. He was also charged with having on 21st December of the same year, at Dunedin, made a fake declar- j ation for the purpose of procuring a certificate from the Registrar of Marriages. Evidence, was given by Emily Victoria Barnes, who stated that she had lived at Southward Bridge road, London, and 'while there knew 'Louisa Elizabeth Nobie. She remembered Miss Noble getting married to John Blundell in 1 1914. When shown a wedding group photograph re cently, she recognised therein the accused and the girl she had known. Witness said that she had not actually been present at the ceremony, but knew some girls who had been. She last saw Louisa Blundell in 1917 or 1918. and had received one letter from her since she (witness) had been in New Zealand. This letter had been destroyed after being answered. Witness.had seen the accut. ed and the girl Louisa together about three times after the marriage.

, Detective Palmer stated that he had interviewed tlie occased. who had said that when he married Miss Sharp he had ro reason to believe that his wife wbb dead, but he had thought she had divorced him. He admitted that photographs shown him were those of himself and nis first wife, also that the contents of a certificate which was produced were a true statement of his first marriage. Sergeant Shanahan stated in evidence that he had'interviewed accused in 'fae'ptember last; and-had'obtained from 'him a signed statement to the effect that he had married Miss Noble in London in 1914. He wbb in the Navy then, and shortly afterwards was posted to H.M.S. Valiant. There was ono child of tun union, a boy. Accused was demobilised in 1919, and. on arrival home his wife told him that she- had made a mistake in marrying him, and could not live with him. He tried to get her to live with him, but she refused. He then said that he would give her grounds for divorce by not living with her, and she replied that she would apply for a divorce. The couple had not lived together or cohabitated since. He then went to sea on a mail boat, and 'uacl seen his wife on hree occasions \wht-n in port. She always said she would carry on divorce proceedings. He came to New Zealand in 1920, and met Miss if'lwrp, and married her in December that'year. Hb honestly believed that he had been divorced by his first wifa, though he had received no paper* Accused, who reserved lus defence, was.committed for trial, bail being allowed.