GUILTY OF BIGAMY

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1926, Page 11

GUILTY OF BIGAMY

VERDICT IN OPUNAKE CASE FALSE PRETENCES ALSO PROVED. MAN REMANDED FOR SENTENCE. e “Guilty on each of the three counts” was the verdict of the jury in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday after consideration of the charges against Samuel Julian, of Opunake, of bigamy, making a false declaration in order to obtain a marriage certificate, and wilfully making a false statement on the certificate. The Chief Justice (Hon. C. P. Skerrett), who was on the bench, intimated that he proposed to give the matter some consideration, and would remand the prisoner for sentence. Continuing his cross-examination of accused when the case was resumed yesterday morning, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. 11. Weston) questioned him closely with regard to the two letters alleged to have been received by him from Er land containing information that his wife had died, letters which accused said he received in 1923 but had since lost. Mr. Weston: It is pretty clear now, I understand, that those letters from England saying that your wife, was dead were a hoax. Accused: Yes. That seems to be the case. Mr. Weston: The letter received by Mrs. Cossey from your wife seems to put the matter beyond doubt. Accused: I suppose the signature to the letter is quite authentic, is it? I have not yet seen the letter. On being shown the letter, accused admitted that there was no doubt that the ‘writing was his wife’s. Mr. Weston: These letters were cruel and criminal hoaxes’—Undoubtedly. The writer of one of the letter’s, Miss Guminos, had reached an age when you would expect a sense of responsibility? —Yes, certainly. And the other lady, Mrs. Richards? Would you expect her to write a false l.tter to you? —No. I did not expect anything of the kind. These ladies were persons of standing in the community, I presume. —Oh, yes. Miss Gummos was a country lady, though, and Mrs. Richards used to go out washing to augment her income. SUGGESTION OF FORGERY. His Honour: You told us yesterday that both these ladies were well educated, the second one particularly so. You seem to have forgotten about that. —They were both well educated. The second lady had fallen on evil times. Mr. Weston: And have you written to them since, protesting against the hoaxes! No! I thought of it, but did not do so. And you still think there is a possibility that these two ladies wrote the letters’—Frankly, I do not think they wrote them. Then you suggest that your wife forged the letters! —I would not bo surprised. They are not in her writing, though. Now, with reference to the other charges against you. Don’t you think it was very wrong of you to fill in the fonp with the word “bachelor,” when you should have put “widower.”—l wanted to tell the truth and put ‘ widower,” but Miss Iggulden earnestly requested that I should not. She did not want her father to know, and I did it to meet her wishes. Questioned by His Honour, accused detailed his movements from place to place in Taranaki after his return from England. His wife, he said, was 18J years old when he married her in England. He did not know the exact address of the girl’s parents when he met her, and after coming to New Zealand he did not correspond with the girl’s parents. His Honour: Why did you not write to the parents when you heard that your wife was dead, in an endeavour to confirm the report!—l did not think it was necessary. I never doubted the accuracy of the letters. ACCUSED CLOSELY - QUESTIONED. Then why did you write to the police in England asking for information, instead of writing to the girl’s parents, or to the two ladies who wrote the letters! You are inconsistent. —I thought the police would be the best people to write to in order to obtain a death certificate. Why did you not ask Mrs. Cossey or other people in Taranaki whether your wife was dead before going through the form of marriage with this other young girl?—l did not think it was necessary. I did not doubt the letters for a moment. This concluded the case for the defence. In addressing the jury, Mr. Bennett pointed out that the defence admitted that the accused had married Violet Minnie Real in England and that he subsequently went through the form of marriage with Ivy Iggulden at Opunake on December 9, 1925. Was the jury satisfied, however, that accused knew or thought that his first wife was alive when he went through the form of marriage a second time! If they thought that the accused earnestly believed his first wife was dead at the time, then they must acquit him. Was not the accused justified, in view of all the circumstances, in believing the authenticity of the letters and thinking that liis wife was dead? Referring particularly to the letter sent by Mrs. Julian to Mrs. Cossey on May 10 1925, Mr. Bennett asked what could be the motive lying behind Mrs. Julian’s request that accused bo not told that she was still alive. Was it not reasonable to interpret the whole tone of the letter in the light of a carefully laid plot in order to trap the accused into the position in which he found himself at present, standing .his trial on a charge of bigamy? Was it not reasonable to infer that Mrs. Julian knew the two letters had been written to the accused, and that the letters had been responsible in bringing the accused into his present unfortunate position, thus giving Mrs. Julian the opportunity she wanted of “getting some of her own. back.” CASE FOR THE CROWN. Reviewing the ease for the Crown, Mr. Weston Fated that there could be little doubt about the false _ pretences charges, as the accused had himself admitted making a false declaration. The Crown suggested that the real reason for the filling in of “bachelor” on the marriage form at Opunake instead of “widower” was that if he was a widower he was required to fill in the date of death of his 6 first wife; and this would

obviously have’presented a difficulty at once. With regard to the bigamy charge, the evidence showed in several respects that accused was a liar. He had shown no consideration for the girl he had wronged, had even with his first wife failed badly in his duties as a husband. Under the circumstances was it reasonable to assume that accused really did believe his wife was dead? The whole ease for the defence rested on the two letters said to. have been receivd from England, and these letters could not be produced. The jury could hardly doubt that Mrs. Julian was alive in December, 1925, in view of the statement from England, dated June 29, 1926, which was ■signed by Mrs. Julian, and the signature, vouched for by Mrs. Ibbotson. Accused maintained that there were certain dissimilarities between the signature and a previous signature of Mrs. Julian’s, but the jury would have* an opportunity of comparing the two and judging for themselves. JUDGE’S DIRECTION TO JURY. In directing the jury before they retired, His Honour pointed out that the accused had to answer three charges, one of making a false declaration, one of making a false statement,’ and one of bigamy. Judges generally endorsed the principle that if a man in a ease of bigamy was to be acquitted lie must not only honestly have believed that his first wife was dead at the time when he went through the form of marriage with another woman, but he must have made, in the opinion of those trying him, reasonable enquiries to confirm this belief. For the guidance of the jury in arriving at a verdict, His Honour supplied them with a typewritten sheet on which were four questions: (1) Did the accused actually marry Violet Minnie Real in England’ (2) Did he go through the form of marriage with Ivy Iggulden at Opunake? (3) At the time of going through the form of marriage, was his first wife still alive? (4) (a) At the time of his going through the form of marriage at Opunake did he truly believe that Violet Minnie Real was alive? (4) (b) If so, did the accused have reasonable grounds for this belief? The legislation in the matter of bigamy was based on two main grounds, said His Honour. First of all there war the question of the hardship inflicted on the man or woman who had been misled and. secondly, there was the desirability of preserving the sanctity of marriage, of keeping pure the institution of marriage. The case before the jury was in one respect extraordinary and probably unparalleled in bigamy cases. The position was that the whole defence rested on the completely uncorroborated evidence of the accused himself. The story of the letters from England, and everything of importance in the defence rested entirely on the evidence of the accused. In all eases in which accused said that his statements would be corroborated, no corroboration was forthcoming. The jury retired at 12.30 p.m., and returned at 2.30 p.m. with a verdict, as stated.