A TANGLED SKEIN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8646, 3 February 1914, Page 5

A TANGLED SKEIN

BEFORE AUCKLAND COURT VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE QUESTIONED. Press Association. AUCKLAND, February 2. A complicated set of circumstances was revealed in a will case brought before Mr Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court this morning. Application was made for an order declaring Annie A. Henley intestate, and appointing Alexander Henley, her husband, administrator of her estate. It was shown in the evidence that deceased had been throe times married, but there was no proof of the validity of the two later ceremonies. The first husband went to Australia, there being no issue of the marriage, and after a continued absence, and under the belief that ho had died, deceased went through the form of marriage with another man. The parties lived together for some years, and had four children born of the union. Then they were involved in some domestic disputes at Wanganui, which resulted in a separation order. Later, it was discovered that the first husband was alive in Sydney. That was in 1903 or 1904. Trie marriage between plaintiff and the deceased took place some seven years later. One child was bom, and deceased, Annie Henley, died in July of last year. The property in the estate is estimated at £I2OO. The deceased made a will in 1903 leaving the property to plaintiff and the children ot the second marriage, but this document she revoked by a will in 1909. She then got possession of the later one from her solicitor, and apparently destroyed it. In 1912 she gave instructions for a new will to be prepared, but this was never signed. A declaration of intestacy was therefore asked for. , The four children of the second marriage and the child of the third were joined as defendants. , His Honour pointed out that the difficulty to be faced was the validity of the marriage between the plaintiff and deceased. If the first husband was dead at the time of the second marriage, the second husband, who was still alive, was the legal widower, but if he was alive then, and was still surviving at the time of the third marriage, the plaintiff and his child were out of court. There was evidence to show he was alive when the second marriage was contracted, though there was the honest belief that he was dead; but there was no evidence at ail to show whether he was still living when the third marriage took place. Evidence on that point was important, and he suggested that the case should be adjourned for further inquiries to be made. ~ „ Counsel adopted the suggestion.