THRICE A BIGAMIST.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12910, 5 July 1905, Page 6

THRICE A BIGAMIST.

MARRIED FOUR TIMES.

A FOURTH HUSBAND SUED FOR MAINTENANCE.

Melbourne, June 15. Can the woman who has been married four times, who, on three of the occasions, committed bigamy, recover maintenance from her fourth husband? According to the law, it appears that under certain circumstances she can. The question arose to-day in the trial of a coloured man, Henry Don Hendrick, for wilfully neglecting to comply with a maintenance order made against him for £1 per week for the support of his wife, cind he was also charged with leaving the State. Mrs. Hendrick said she was married to accused at Geelong in 1895, and she lived with her husband until 1901, when he left her. . On December 9 of the same year she obtained a maintenance order from the city justices, under which accused was required to pay her £1 per week. She received the last payment on March 2. Accused: When you married me at Geelong were you.not married to a man named Saunders, in England'/ Witness: Yes, and you knew that. Saunders was alive at the time?— Yes, I was married to him when I was 15 years of age. You also married a man named Byers, in Queensland, while Saunders was alive?— Yes; and you knew that. You married Byers again in Melbourne? —Yes.

And then you went to Sydney and married a man at a Rcdfem registry office? Yes, quite right. Then you committed bigamy? I did; it was because 1 was young and foolish.

When you married Byers yon knew Saunders was alive?— Yes. Byers was like you: He married me for my money, and then took all I had.

Accused, in a statement to the jury; said that after he married complainant at Geelong ho found out that she had two other husbands living, and that he did not think he was her husband. When he had money lie . paid it to her, but he did nob consider himself morally bound to do so. He could not get anything to do in Victoria, and went to New Zealand.

His Honor said accused had asserted that the woman was not his wife, but the order treated her as his wife, and he had had full opportunity of proving in the lower Court that she was not his wife; but he went on paying her £1 per week for two years, and they might be sure that he would not have paid that if she were not his wife. She appeared to regard it as a matter of course that she should go through the ceremony of marriage with as many men as she liked, but the Court had nothing to do with her morals, and if they thought accused had broken the law, the question was : Did he do it wilfully? The jury, after a short retirement, found the accused guilty, and he was remanded for sentence.