HAWTHORNE'S HASH.

NZ Truth, Issue 477, 8 August 1914, Page 4

HAWTHORNE'S HASH.

A Matrimonial Mix-up

Kllon Hawthorne, whose double shutlling of the matrimonial act landed her m the Chrlstchurch S.M.s Court a few days ago, toed the line before Mr. .lustlce Denniston, at the Chriatchurch Supreme Court this week, and, championed by Lawj'er Leathern, pleaded not guilty to having committed bigamy by tying up with George l^ake before her original 40 per cent, had parted his earthly cable. "Truth" has already reported tho lower court proceedings, where Jim

Hawthorne, Ellen's first choice, reckoned he had instituted proceedings for a. divorce from Ellen m 1912, and had, until recently, been under the impression that the divorce "took" all right, and he and Ellen were legally scissored apart. He had told Ellen she was a free woman and she thought so too until after she cemented herself to George Lake last November. Subsequently Husband No. 1 informed Ellen that her second marriage was a "schleinter" because the necessary decree had not been sliced off. Ellen then sued her husband, for maintenance, but she was collected before the case was heard. , Ellen reckoned that Hawthorne had definitely given her to understand that she was divorced. Consequently she had married George Lake, only to discover that he was also -a. previously married man whose lawful rib was anything except defunct. Naturally there was a bit of a verbal scrap, after which Lake slithered away to Australia, and it was then that Ellen learned for the first time that she was still the legal rib of her first husband. Recognising this, and that he was bound to support her, she set the wheels moving to procure maintenance. / 'Lawyer Leathern addressed the jury and urged that Ellen's second marital stunt had been negotiated without criminal intention. -His Honor, however, pointed out that the law did not provide that a prisoner's belief that a divorce had been ob- , tamed was good grounds for a defence. ' There was certainly such a i provision m respect to death, but not to divorce. The jury were asked to answer yes or no to the following question: — "Did the prisoner, ' when she went through. ! the form of marriage with George Lake believe m good faith and on reasonable grounds that her first husband was divorced?" The jury retired for a few minutes and answered m the affirmative, where-

*33S$SJS

upon, at his Honor's direction, the jury returned a formal verdict of guilty m order that the point might be decided by the Court of Appeal. According- to the explanation tendered by his Honor, the effect of the verdict m the event of the Court of Appeal upholding tlyit the defence was proper, would be one of not guilty. If it found on the contrary, the present verdict would stand. But In any case Ellen would not suffer any penalty and was discharged.