HOPE CASE CONCLUDED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19761, 7 October 1927, Page 15

HOPE CASE CONCLUDED.

DECISION NEXT THURSDAY. INFORMATION FROM ENGLAND. MEN OF SAME NAME AT WORK. The hearing of evidence in the Hope maintenance case was concluded in the Police Court yesterday, Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., reserving his decision until next Thursday. Mr. Paterson. for the Crown, questioned accused's wife regarding a signed statement she was alleged to have made .to Chief Detective Ward in 1924. when accused was in gaol. She said the detective spoke to her and wrote down something, but she denied signing it, although she admitted the signature Mr. Paterson showed her was something like her own. One remark in the detective's statement was that accused ha,d served in the marines during the war, but witness said i she meant he was a sailor on a merchant ship. Mr. Paterson examined her at | length on other remarks contained in the statement. She denied that her husband had been employed in munition works during the war. Mr. Sullivan, who appeared "-for accused, said that at first he was inclined to doubt accused's statement that he was not the man the police believed him to be. However, his general attitude had convinced him, and he was now certain there had been a case of mistaken identity. There was ample evidence that accused had taken steps to establish his identity. He had taken up the matter with members of Parliament, "including Sir James Parr and Mr M. J. Savage, and he would have returned to England to clear the whole matter up but for the fact that he was refused a passport. Counsel said the wife, when saying that accused had served in the marines, really meant the marine service. He had received advice from the Manchester I>ry Docks authorities saying that two men named Hope were employed there as electrical fitters during 1920. He had cabled to the shipping authorities and expected an early reply verifying accused's statement that he had served in the Larrinaga Line on the very day that he was supposed to have been married in Sheffield. Mr. Paterson said it was established that a John William Hope did live in Worseley and had been served with a notice. Accused had been refused a passport because he was an assisted immigrant and had not refunded certain money to the Government. Furthermore, the boat on which he proposed to sail touched at South Africa, and it was highly probable that had accused left by it, he might not have reached England. When they came to Auckland accused and his wife had lived with relatives called Hughes, and ifc was significant that during the early part of their stay Hope had often mentioned Sheffield. After letters arrived saying he had been previously married, he made no further reference to Sheffield. The magistrate said he would consider the evidence carefully and give his decision next Thursday. He hoped that Mr. Sullivan would receive his reply from the English shipping authorities before then. Accused was ordered to report daily to the police in the meantime.