CHARGE OF BIGAMY

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11664, 31 October 1923, Page 7

CHARGE OF BIGAMY

‘THOUGHT WIFE WAS DEAD j MARRIAGES IN ENGLAND AND NEW ZEALAND. NOT A MODEL DREAM HUSBAND. The marital adventures of an English seaman, who had contracted marriages both in England and in this country, led to his appearance in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge of bigamy. The prisoner was eventually found guilty, sentence being deferred. Mr Justice Reed was on the bench, and the accused was tried before a jury. The case was that of Charles Edward William Phillips, and the prisoner, who was represented by Mr C. A. L. Treadwell, pleaded not guilty. THE FIRST MARRIAGE. The facts of the case were traversed by Mr P. S. K. 'Macassey. Crown Prosecutor, who said that Phillips had married a woman named Laura Elizabeth Oorney in England on June 3rd, 1908. Three years later he left his wife and came to New Zealand, where he intended making a home. In 1016 he married Ellen Rose Peterson, at Wellington, by whom he has had two children. The former marriage was never annulled, and the first wife was still alive. The accused had described himself as a widower, and had been employed as a seaman and fisherman. Mr Macassey said the onus- was on the Crown to establish the first marriage, which they would have no difficulty in doing; also that he went through a second marriage. The onus Was on the prisoner to show that he truly believed that his first wife was dead and that he had made reasonable inquiries. To undertake a second marriage without making these inquiries •was a very serious step. Searching in'quiries were absolutely essential. Phillips was charged on two counts, the first being the crime of bigamy, and, secondly, with making a false declaration to the Registrar of Marriages. “DON’T BE HARD!” William James Murray, police detective, gave corroborative evidence in } support of the Crown Prosecutor’s j opening. When shown a copy of his marriage certificate, the accused admitted that it wae correct. The detective read a statement made by the first wife, in which she said, “Don’t he too hard on him, as 1 feel that it was my fault for not going out to him.” i The prisoner had also admitted that j the copy of his second marriage certifi- : cate was correct. He had gone to England on war service, but did not make I any attempt to verify a statement that i his first wife was dead, i Cross-examined bv Mr Treadwell, the witness admitted that the inquiry had l been commenced by the accused and his | second wife-, who had come to the police station, and made statements, j That wa6 the origin of the matter, j In the first place it was an inquiry l being made by Phillips ?—-Yes. : And flic police carried out his inI structmns?—J. do nob know about that. 1 They investigated t.ho complaint. ] Did you know that the matter arose i through the second wife dreaming that j the firct wife was alive?—No, I do | not. This is the first I have heard ' about that-. Evidence was also tendered by Ell-m .Rose Peterson, who said she was the person referred to in the second mnr|riage certificate. The accused had told her bo was a widower, and that his wife had died in England. ‘‘l asked him to go to the police station with mo, because I did not know who I was,” was the witness's statement —“T was in doubt.” His Honour: You had heard something to make you suspect?—Yes. The witness said she had two children bv Phillips, and one by a former marrialge. What did he sav to you ?—He said he did not care whether she was dead so ’eng as h© had me. The witness stated that ©fin had left Phillips some six months, and the children were now at Levin. “SO MANY LIES.” To Mr Treadwell, she said her husband had been kind to her, but ©lie did not consider him a model husband, as h© had told her “so many lies.” “I have been so worried,” she said, in reply to another question, “it began to prey on my mind.” “BELIWED WIPE WAS DEAD.” The accused entered the box, and gave evidence in his own defence. He fc?aid he was a fruiterer and vegetable grower. There were- no children by the first marriage. He first arrived in New Zealand in 1909, and returned to this country in 1911. Relations with hia first wife were most happy. She promised to come out to New Zealand inter, and he sent her £SO for that purpose. “She said if I could not go Home to her, oho did not want my money,” proceeded the witness, who went on to say that lie had -written to his wife for eighteen months, and received no reply. When in England he had been informed that she had died while he was away. “It was my firm belief that she was dead,” he said, “but my ecconcl wife told me that she had a dream to the effect that the first wife wajs« alive.” You believed tint vour firso wife was dead?—Yes, by all accounts she was. You had no doubts? —No. Cross-examined by tho Crown Prosecutor, the accused admitted that ho had not gone to see his wife when in England. He understood that she was dead. “It is not enough for a man to go in tho Ixix and say ‘I thought- my first wife was dead I .’ That is not enough.” said His Honour, addressing the jury after counsel had concluded their addresses. “Before he entered into another marriage it was his duty to make due and proper inquiries. If he had done this then lie is to be excused if he really and truly believed the answjeAai he ’had! received from these inquiries.” WHAT STANDARD? His Honour said the case was important from this point of view: That numbers of people were arriving in New Zealand from tho Old Country, and dt was the duty of the jury to say what was to bo the standard set as tc reasonable inquiries made. Such moo were st! angers, and very little was known (regarding them. ” Tho juij had a serious responsibility. Were they satisfied that reasonable inquiries had been made? If so, it was their duty to acquit the prisoner, but if they were not satisfied, then it was their duty to convict him. In conclusion, the Judge turned to another aspect of the matter, and alluded to the serious possibility in such cases, if duo inquiries had m*fc been made, of children carrying the stigma of bastardy attached to them for the rest of their lives. The jury ictired at 2.45 p.m. to consider their verdict, and returned half an hour later, having found Phil-

lips guilty. They added a KXommH'ndation to merry. Kis Honour: On -what ground? The foreman . On the ground of the prisoner's envious ignorance. The prisoner was ordered to stand down. Ho will appear later for sentence.