AN EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDING

Otago Witness, Issue 3519, 23 August 1921, Page 53

AN EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDING

AN OI.D WOMAN’S BURIAL. AUCKLAND. August 17. An extraordinary story was told at the Supreme Court to-day disclosing some peculiar circumstances surrounding the burial of an old woman who died at Tauranga a short time ago. '1 he husband, Edward Mortimer tiilla-rn Ma-urice, was charged with having made a false statement to the local registrar of deaths regarding the_ supposed witness of burial, which the widower admitted. Counsel for prisoner said Maurice was an ignorant man, and had bungled the instructions given him bv the registrar. He had failed to understand what he was told, and in completing the death certificate subsequent to the funeral got a man to sign the document as having witnessed the burial. At a later stage Maurice had declared to the registrar and other officers that the man had seen the burial. As a matter of fact, the “witness” had been in the cemetery prior to the funeral, had seen the open grave, and afterwards had seen the closed grave. The probation officer’s report was in prisoner’s favour. Maurice had no previous’ccnvietions, and counsel thought the court should take into consideration the fact that the accused had actually been m custody for the last 12 da vs. His Honor: I notice he conducted the funeral himself. That might mean poverty. Counsel: Mv instructions are he desired to save an undertaker’s expenses. The Crown Prosecutor said it might have been on account of poverty, or it. might have been on account of pure callousness. It appeared that when prisoner was informed that a death certificate was required, he demurred at first, because of the distance he would have to fetch a doctor. He arrived at the cemetery with the coffin, but without a clergyman, and no burial service w’as read, and there were no witnesses other than himself. The coffin was simply put into the grave and covered up. Afterwards he found he had no clergyman to certify to the burial, and, as he had to have witnesses, he procured the signatures of two persons whom he found there. One of them had actually wanted to attend the funeral, but when he asked prisoner the lime of the burial Maurice had replied that he did not know, as he was busy with the creamery. That had a bear ing on his attitude of mind as to whether it was a case of pure ignorance or whether he simply did not care. His Honor said there were no circumstances showing what was the object of the concealment The object of the law was to prevent, secret burials of persons who might have been done away with by some crime The offence was not a light matter. Had prisoner been found guilty after a trial lie would probably have ha- 1 sentence or a very severe fine imposed. The case, however, would lie met by a fine of £lO and tlie costs of the prosecution, amounting to £4 2s.