MAULE’S SENTENCE ON A BIGAMIST.

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 8878, 3 January 1890, Page 2

MAULE’S SENTENCE ON A BIGAMIST.

A PIECE OF SATIRE. * By far the beat thing in ‘ Benchand Bar,' by Mr Serjeant Robinson, as well aa the finest piece .of humorous satire, ever .uttered by Maule. is hisjamons 1 sentence fpn a man convicted of; bigamy, ; Its unsparing scarcastn on the old law of divorce ii said to have had no littlb indnenoe in bringing about the Devoroe Act of 1857. Serjeant Robinson claims for his version of Maule’e words substantial and almost verbal accuracy * Prisoner at the bar, yon have been convicted before me of what the law regards as a very grave and serious offence—that of going through the marriage ceremony a second time while your wife Is still alive. Yon plead in mitigation of your conduct that she was given to dissipation and drunkenness, that she proved herself a curse to yonr household while she remained mistress of it, and that she had lately deserted yon ; but I am not permitted to recognise any such plea. You bad entered into A SOLEMN ENGAGEMENT. to take her for better, for worse, and if you got infinitely more of the latter, as you appear to have done, it was your duty patiently to submit. You say you took another person to be your wife, because you were left with, several young children who required the care and protection of someone who might act as a substitute for the parent ,who bad deserted them ; but the law makes noallowanoes for bigamists with large families. Had you taken the other female to live with you as your concubine, ,you wonld never have been interfered with by thelaw. Butyour crime consists in having—tomse your pwn language —preferred to make an honest woman of her. Another of your irrational excuses is that wife had committed adultery, and so you thought you were relieved from treating her with any further consideration. But you were mistaken. The law, in its wisdom, points out a means by which you might rid yourself from further association with A WOMAN WHO HAD DISHONOURED YOU ; but you did not think proper to adopt it. I will tell you ? what that process is. You ought first to have brought an action against your wife’s seducer, if you could discover him. That might have cost yon money, and you say you are a poor working man ; but that is not the fault of the law. You would then be obliged to prove by evidence your wife’s criminality in a court of justice, and thus obtain a verdict with damages against the defendant, Who was not unlikely to turn out to be a: pauper. But so jealous is the law (which you oiight to be aware is the<perfeotion of reason) of the sanctity of the mar* riage tie that in accomplishing all this you would only have fulfilled the lighter portion of your duty. You must then have gone, with your verdict in your hand, and petitioned the House of Lords for a divorce. It would cost you, perhaps, five dr six hundred pounds, and you do not seem to be worth so' many pence. But it is t , THE BOAST OF THE LAW that it is impartial, aad makes no difference between .the rich and the poor. The wealthiest man in the kingdom would have had’to pay no less than that sum for tbs same'luxury; so that you would have no reason to complain. You would, of course, have to prove your case over again, and at the end of a year, or possibly two, you might obtain a decree which wonld enable you legally to do what you have thought proper to do without it. You have thus wilfully rejected the boon the legislature offered you, and it is my duty to pass upou yon such sentence as I think your offence deserves, and that sentence is, that you be imprisoned for one day; and, inasmuch as the present assize is three days old, the result is that you will be immediately discharged.'