A QUEER CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue LXXIV, 28 August 1917, Page 4

A QUEER CASE.

MARRIED OR NOT MARRIED.

In the case against one Sutton, for breach of the Military Service Act ia •tating he was married when he wa* not, proceedings were resumed at NewPlymouth, yesterday (the Herald reports}. Mai-shall Raybould, farmer, at Auroa, aged 55 years, who has been in NewZealand about seven years, said he knew the accused and his 'father in England. He first knew accused at Oldhill, Staffordshire, and then at Cradley, Worcestershire,,which was three milet away. Accused at this time was married, and he was still living with his wif« when witness left Hagley (five mi!e» from Cradley). The photograph (produced) was that of accused's wife. To the Sub-inspector: Accused was. about 25 when I left Hagley. I had nodefinite knowledge that he was married r except that he was always with her everywhere, and lived with her. I had never spoken to her. I will not swear: that this is the woman's photograph. After accused came out to me, he wrot« to her to come out to New Zealand, but she did not. To the Magistrate: He did not show, me the letters, but read them out to me. We were working at the sameplace in England, and ishe always brought him lunch. I have no doubt in my mind that he was married. Ther* was never any conversation about them when I visited his father. William Baybould, aged 31, eon of th» previous witness, stated that he cam© to New Zealand five years ago. About three years before he came out he was. at Oldhill, which was a short distancefrom Cradley, where accused was livI ing with his wife. A year before witness; left England, accused came out to NewZealand and stayed with witness 7 people; In response to a letter from hi* parents, in which accused asked witnee* to g»and ccc Mrs Sutton, he called on her one day. She was the woman in thephotograph (produced). To the Magistrate: She was managing the Crown and Anchor Hotel, Cradley. She told me she would come out here to her husband, but said she wan at that time doing very well at th» hotel. His Worship said he had no doubt,, on th«, evidence, that the man was married. There were no strict facts, tut he did not know that he was bound t* insist en these. The evidence of the younger Raybould seemed to be quite ooneluiive, as he said he had himself celled on- the woman at the hotel. The Question at issue was whether «r net the accused made a false declaration in; •aying he was married. His Worshipcame to t&a conclusion that technically the man was married, though really h* i appeared to have mone of tke responsibilities attaching to a marriage. Themaa wat liable to other charges regarding _ his marriage, and, further, as to perjury, but these had nothing to d©> with him at present. The Sub-inspector: Proceedings will" be taken in due course, your Worship.. Sutton was then discharged. On leaving the courthouse he was arrested on a warrant charging him witk having, on June 27. 1917, at Hawesra, wilfully made a false'declaration for th«purpose of procuring a registrar's certificate under the Marriage Act. It i» alleged that at Hawera he made a declaration that he was a bachelor..