HOPE OR HIS DOUBLE?

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 160, 27 September 1927, Page 13

HOPE OR HIS DOUBLE?

IDENTITY DENIED ARREARS OF MAINTENANCE PREVIOUSLY IMPRISONED John William Hope, of Auckland, is identical with John William Hope, who was marnod at Sheffield on August 29, W 6. was the problem presented * Mr - K. Hunt, S.M., at the “ollce Court to-day. Hope contends that he is not, and **ys that he met the other Hope, who wais considered to be his double, working at the Manchester dry docks. Hope, of Auckland, was charged wttli Iming £l6O in arrears on a mainiJOiiaee order made in England, and *he defence raised by Mr. J. J. Sulli"iq was that Hope »s not the husband )f ho woman in whose favour the :rdjr had been made. HISTORY OF CASfc fcr. S. L. Patterson, who appeared for the Crown, in outlining the case, said that John William Hope married Annie Hope at Sheffield ill August. 1913. In July, 1921, Annie Hope obtained. a summary separation from her husband at Sheffield, and maintenance tiled at 30s a week In June, 1922, the order was reduced to 255. I* August.. 1923, Hope ceased to pay toouey under the order, and a warrant isiued for his arrest the next laontt, but it was not executed. As a result of inquiries by the Old TaHord police, Mrs. Annie Hope received a Viter from Miss Annie Barnes, sister had married John VVilH°pe, the defendant, lain followed a correspondence beMrs. Hope and Miss Barnes. TH* Utters show,” said Mr. Pflt"that the payment of the stopped at the time Hope '•ft Untsnd for New Zealand. Miss Barnes made inquiries where Bop© lived, and ascertained that be inferred. The Barnes family would have ex■iwtfid every means to prove to the c «WBWjp," said M ,. p a ttcrson. m inoatiruing the; history of the case, son said that in Apr 1, 1924. was sentenced to six months’ yisonment for disobedience of the rdf After release he went to WellJF} 051 * where he lived under the name In April, 1925, he was again to two months' imprisonlle deniea that his name an d that he had ever been Ufland. *? tt!livan *ben outlined the eviU,Jp]he proposed to call, and said if °* Hi P er sisted in his story, which, “•Proved, would make him liable Mca**** on '-barges of perjury and Stoy. hU i!#® b*Ad never been to Sheffield in U ;jr , he had met a John WildoQbta w bo was considered to be PHOTOGRAPHER’S EVIDENCE Gordon Blakey. managing or ot the 3. P. Andrew Studio, V-itjl * Xa ’ rT 'ined a photograph of John Hope of Sheffield, and his > that although the man in ant ;J?°* ‘graph resembled the defend•l*1 ,q *E; , L Wer © marked points of differing* defendant had a cupid’s whereas the mouth in the Tj/sraoh was straight. Magistrate, Mr. F. K. Hunt: !« vWRi swear definitely that Hope •«t| man Iri the photograph? i. 3 y"* would I swear that t *|