Jury Finds Not Guilty of Bigamy

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 174, 26 July 1935, Page 8

Jury Finds Not Guilty of Bigamy

CROWN FAILS TO PROVE FIRST WIFE STILL LIVING

Before his Honour Mr. Justico Blair in tho Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, William Albert John Kitteridge, of Palmerston North, was charged with committing bigamy. It was alleged by the Crown that on November 1, 1928, being already married to Elizabeth Ann Russell on May 26, 1916, at the Registrar’s office at Poplar, London, he went through a form of marriage at the Methodist Parsonage, Palmerston North, with Alvira Barrett.

The case for the Crown was conducted by Mr. 11. R. Cooper, and the defendant’s case was made by Mr. A. M Ongley.

The following jury was empanelled: Messrs D. Fraser (foreman), C. Pike, E. A. Christensen, K. McKenzie, G. 11. Wilson, L. V. Gifford, P. Clausen, R. J. Andrews, J. J. McShanc, S. G. Judd, J. Burns, R. Hodson.

Detective Barling gave evidence of a statement he took from accused in November last, in which Kitteridge, who is 39 years of age, said that his parents resided at Poplar. When 14 years of age he ran away from home and went to sea. Ho was married is 1916, and had served during the war with the New Zealand Forces. To be accepted he had had to use his wife’s maiden name of Russell, but returning later to New Zealand he resumed his own name. His wife, who had in tho meanwhile been, in New Zealand, left the Dominion again for England with their two children. Ho had last seen her in 1923. In 1927 ho received from Leonard Taylor, a ship’s fireman, who had previously lived with accused’s wife in Wellington for threo weeks, a letter stating that she was happily married.

The letter did not say to whom, but he presumed it was to Taylor himself, who had ouco vowed that "he would get her one day.”

In 1928 ho met Alvira Barrett, who was working as an hotel waitress in Masterton. Later ho met her in Palmerston North again, both living for a timo at tho same address. She became ill, and as she appeared to have no one to take caro of her, he married her. They lived together for about a year, and there was one child. Then she left him to go and live with her peoplo in Australia. Before leaving she had told him she was already married to another man before marrying accused, but would not tell what her original married namo was. Ho last saw her when putting her aboard a boat for S3’dney. That was in Auckland in 1929.

Detective Barling produced a ccrti ficate of the marriage in 1928. Accused was described thereon as a bachelor.

In making the statement Kitteridge had been entirely frank and kept in close contact with the police while inquiries were being made. Lionel M. Abraham, solicitor, and also a member of the English Bar, testified that the Poplar marriage certificate was in order.

Mrs. Grace Matilda Bingham gav» evidence of having witnessed Kitteridge’s marriage with Alvira Barrett in 1925. Mrs. M.ary Mills said that Alvira Barrett and Kitteridge both boarded at her house for a period in 1928. Miss Barrett was concerned about being out of work, but not about being ill. Mr. Ongley submitted thero was no evidence to prove that accused’s first wife was still alive in 1928. The last word of her was a letter in 1927 saying that she was happily married to another man. The Crown must prove she was still living. It had all means at its disposal, yet placed the case without in the least establishing this. In these circumstances, he did not think the jury would be satisfied of any criminal action on the part of Kitteridge. J.n any ease, said Mr. Ongley, the letter received by accused showed that his first wife had taken no interest in him for over five years, and was herself remarried. She had not been adversely affected by his second union. The second marriage had not been one of self interest, Ho thought she had no one to look after her, and was in danger of a serious illness. It was not a case of marrying a young attractive person for money. Moreover, lie was entitled to suppose that his first wife had divorced him.

It was not disputed that accused had twice gone through a form of marriage, said his Honour in summing up. But bigamy was not established unless it Avas shown that the first wife was alive. The Crown must prove its case thoroughly, otherwise the accused person could sit back and pull it to pieces. The jury returned after 20 minutes’ retirement to announce a verdict of not guilty, and Kitteridge was discharged. The whole case occupied barely an hour.