YOUNG MARRIAGE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 51, Issue 3176, 30 September 1942, Page 5

YOUNG MARRIAGE

YOUTH & GIRL OF 17 YEARS

FALSE DECLARATIONS CHARGES ADMITTED IN COURT Charges of having wilfully made false declarations to the registrar of marriages at Waihi in connection with his marriage early this year to a 17-year-old girl were made against a young soldier, aged 20, when he appeared before Messrs H. Cooper, and lE. D. McLeay, J’s.P., in the Waihi Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning. The charges were that on January 5, when supplying particulars to the registrar relating to the parties to be married, accused did wilfully make for the purpose of insertion in the marriage registration book a false statement that he was 21 years of age, and that the girl was 22 years of age; and that, on the same date, he did wilfully make a false declaration that he was 21 years of age for the purpose of procuring a registration certificate for marriage. Detective John Hayes, of Hamilton, prosecuted and Mr H. L. Boughton appeared for accused.

Evidence of Registrar

Ivan Trevor Fallwell, registrar of marriages at Waihi, said that his district also included Katikati and that on the morning of January 5 accused called at the Courthouse and stated, that he wished to make application for the issue of a certificate authorising a marriage by a minister of religion to the girl concerned. Accused was given a form known as R.G.45a, and asked to enter on it particulars relating to parties to be married; and when the form was completed it was handed to him. 'On this form the accused entered his name and his age last birthday as 21 years. The form was filled in and signed by accused in the presence of witness and from it witness entered particulars as supplied by the z accused into his marriage notice book (produced). Accused declared that particulars as entered by witness in the marriage book to be true and signed the declaration. Witness accordingly issued the re- . quired certificate authorising the marriage. No Consent By Parents Detective Hayes stated that as the result of a complaint made to him on July 4 regarding the girl’s having gone through a form of marriage at Wailji on January 5 with accused without having obtained her parents’ consent, he made enquiries. At about 5.30 p.m. on August 24, accused, in company with his solicitor, Mr Course, called at the detective office, Hamilton, by appointment. Witness explained to accused the nature of the allegations made by 'the girl regarding the marriage, and in the presence of his solicitor made an explanation which witness typed down and which, after it had been read over, accused tsigned. During the course of the interview with accused witness showed him a copy of a birth certificate which accused said he thought was a copy relating to particulars of his birth. Witness also showed him a copy of a marriage certificate naming the parties concerned and accused said this copy related to their marriage. Statement By Accused Detective Hayes also produced a statement made and signed by accused, who stated that he had met the girl in the street at Katikati, and that they had become on such familiar terms that the girl had told him that she was in a certain condition. They had talked the matter over and, not knowing what the attitude of their parents would be, had decided to get married. Accused had admitted that he knew he was not 21 years of age when he made application to the registrar, .but the girl, who looked much older than her years, had told him she was 22. The parties had gone to the pictures on the night of the wedding, but had not co-habitated.

To Mr Boughton, witness said, accused had been perfectly frank about the whole affair and there had been no difficulty in obtaining a statement.

Accused, who pleaded guilty, was admitted to the Supreme Court at Auckland, bail, which was not opposed by the police, being fixed in the sum of <£2s, with one surety of a like amount. z Question of Publicity Counsel, in applying for an order suppressing publication of the names, said the matter was not one that concerned the public generally, and only the parties to the marriage and their parents, who were high respectable people, were affected. It was not a question of warning the public against somebody who was likely to offend against society in general and accused had never previously been before the court. Mr Boughton added that he did not know whether the

parties would come together again, but if this were likely publication of names would not make their path easier. In any case, the Supreme Court would decide whether or not publicity should be part of -the punishment.

The Bench said it hesitated to make an order for suppression, as publicity acted as a deterrent, but as the matter would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court it would do so. Their Worships added that if they had had finality to deal with the case no such order would be made.