BIGAMY CHARGE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3961, 11 February 1930, Page 32

BIGAMY CHARGE.

FALSE DECLARATION OF MARRIAGE. WELLINGTON, February 6. The hearing of a bigamy charge before his Honour Mr Justice Reed and a jury in the Supreme Court to-day presented some unusual features. James William Hudd pleaded not guilty to bigamy and to a charge of making a false declaration under the Marriage Act, 1908. Mr P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted, and Mr F. W. Ongley appeared for the accused. Evidence was given by Detective W. R. Murray, who said that when he inter? viewed the accused he showed him a cer? tificate of marriage, in which the accused was a contracting party, the marriage having taken place at Croydon on May 23, 1915. The detective produced photo? graphs of the accused and his wife, and of his wedding group, taken in England. He also read a statement in which Violet

Emily Hudd said that “he was married to the accused in May, 1915. She said she left her husband early in 1919 be? cause of his cruelty. Witness als<) showed the accused the copy of a mar? riage certificate, in which the contracting parties were Janies William Hudd, de? scribed as a bachelor, and Ida Brown? ing, aged 23, described as a spinster. In a statement the accused admitted that hig wife’s statement was substantially cor? rect, though he denied the allegation of cruelty. He said that his father-in-law told him that his wife was dead, and a dozen people told him that they had heard that his wife was dead. He did not verify the statements. There were three children of the second union under the age of two years, two being twins. The accused said he had reasonable cause to believe that his wife had died, though he might have been lax in obtaining veri? fication of her supposed death. Ida Hudd gave evidence that she had gone through a form of marriage with the accused in May, 1927, at St. Peter's Church. The witness said she taxed Hudd about certificates she found. Hq at first denied his marriage in England, but later admitted it, and said his wife was dead. She first knew of the naar= riage in October, 1927. The witness wag cross-examined as to her separation from Hudd and as to visits from a Mr and Mrs Harris.

Mr Ongle.v: “ Were you being visited by Harris?” “ Both he and his wife were friends.” “ Did he visit you without his wife?” “ Yes.” “ Were you and Harris to give information to the police?” “ This was my affair.” Frederick James Harris, a -abinelmaker, said he had known Hudd for nine or ten years. After receiving letters from England, before he was married the second time, Hudd told witness that his brother had seen his (accused’s) wife in England. After receiving one particular letter he remarked that it was a coincidence that his wife was anticipating getting married in England, and ne was thinking of the same thing in New Zealand. Cross-examined, the witness said he had given the bride away at the marMr Ongley: Did you give that girl away to a man you knew was committing bigamy ? ” “ I did. It was none of my buei-

“ Have you and Mrs Hudd been friendly ? ” “We have. I don't feel emlwiiasseffi” “ Did you and Mrs Hudd go to Christchurch and stay as man and wife.” “ Yes.” “During tluit time was it ai ranged that information should be given to the police? ” “ No.” “Is it correct that you and Airs Hudd had matters arranged to go to Sydney ? ” “ Mrs Hudd pleaded with me to take her to Sydney after she made arrangements to go back to Hudd.” “ Alight I put it, you have been infatuated with Airs Hudd? "’ “ I have been.” The witness also remarked that lie had acted very indiscreetly. His Honor: This is the frankest witness I have seen for a long-time. Air Alacassey: He certainly does not spare himself. Evidence was given by the accused Hudd, who admitted that he was married in 1915. After his discharge from the army he went home and found his wife and the man she was living with. His wife left the following Saturday but witness stayed three months. The last time he saw his wife was about the middle of 1919, and he had never heard from her since. Witness was informed by his wife’s sister’s fiancee that his wife had died. Hudd added: “ I said, ‘ Well, we will walk along and see the old man,’ and we went to a public house by name of the ‘ Greyhound.’ We walked in and saw Mr Walker in his usual seat. I said, ‘Hello, Tom. How’s Violet?’ He said, ‘ She's dead and so will you be if you don't get out of it.’ After that I asked him to have a drink and he refused. “ The witness added that he heard his wife had gone away with the Welshman with whom she was keeping company, and had died. He denied that he had remarked that his wife in England had been contemplating marriage.

Hudd was found not guilty of bigamy, but guilty of making a false statement. He was remanded for sentence.