WIFE RE-MARRIES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 1871, 12 February 1920, Page 8

WIFE RE-MARRIES.

THOUGHT HUSBAND KILLED.

CHARGE OF BIGAMY RESULTS. Another instance of domestic confusion traceable directly to the War was brought to light this morning in the Supreme Court, before his Honour Mr .Justice Herdman, when Agues Mary Roland pleaded not guilty to a charge of bigamy. The charge set out that on November 29, 1906, at Gisborne, accused was married to William Joseph Roland, and that on February 12, 1916, whilst her tirst husband was alive, she married Gilbert Smaillie, in the Registry Oflice, Ash burton. Mr A. T. Donnelly represented the Crowu, and Mr F. S. Wilding appeared for the accused. Mr Donnelly stated that the accused left her tirst husband in 1912 because of ill treatment, and that in 1916, believing her husband had been killed at the Front, she hail married a second time. Counsel reminded the Court of the coincidence that the 9th Reinforcement, of which her husband was a member, left New Zealand on the day accused married the second time. Caroline Sophia Roland, of Gisborne, mother of accused's first husband, gave evidence regarding the first marriage. Her son went to the War in 1916. To Mr Wilding: She did not hear any report of her son 's death at the Front. She heard that he had been ill. Sergeant Charles Fkidlay, stationed at Mosgiel, said he interviewed accused on July 11, 1919, when she stated that she had been married before, but she had been informed that her husband had been killed at the Front. She had contracted a second marriage. To Mr Wilding: Accused became excited when told that her first husband was alive. It seemed strange news to her. Gilbert Smaillie, labourer, of Mosgiel, said that when he married accused she told him she was a widow. Witness had no doubts on the matter. John Downio, farmer, of Chertsey, father of accused, said he witnessed the second marriage. In August, 1914, accused told him that her husband died under an operation in Auckl. nd. She said she received a letter from Gisborne, apprising her of the fact. Witness did not see the letter, and did not doubt his daughter's veracity. He heard a rumour in 1916 that Roland had been killed. There was a Roland killed in 1916 or 1917. The accused stated that her first husband used to thrash her, and she left home in August, 1912, returning to her father's home. In 1914 she received a letter from a Mr Lawrence, in Gisborne, that her husband had died. The first she heard of her first husband being alive was the receipt of notification respecting proceedings for divorce. She was told that her first husband had been killed at the Front. She did not contest the divorce suit, and a decree nisi was granted. His Honour, in addressing the jury, said the only possible defence in this case was that accused believed at the time of her second marriage that her first husband was dead. It was for the jury to decide, on the evidence, that accused did marry under that belief. Tt was feasible that a woman not. of high education would assume, when told by letter, that her husband had died, that that ended the matter. The jury retired for a few minutes, nd returned with a verdict of not guilty, "without a blemish on her i character.''