MAORI CHARGED WITH BIGAMY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18890, 15 October 1929, Page 9

MAORI CHARGED WITH BIGAMY.

THOUGHT HIS FIRST WIFE WAS DEAD, HE SAYS

A charge of bigamy was preferred against James Wiwi Norton, a Maori, in the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr E. C. Lewev, S.M., this morning. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The charge was that having, cn February 23, 1909, married Annie M’Donald at Blenheim, he did go through a ceremony of marriage with Isabel! Nicoll Welsh, of Christchurch, thereby committing bigamy. Mr E. S. Bowie appeared for accused. In evidence, Annie Norton s*?d that accused was her husband, they having been married at Blenheim in 1909. They had lived together for about a year, when Norton left her. There had been one child of the marriage. Witness had not seen her husband _»etween 1914 and She had lived with his cousin.

Isabella Nicoll Welsh, of Christchurch, said that in 1922 she had met accused in Dunedin, and had gone through a form of marriage with him in the Registrar’s office at Christchurch in 1923. They had then lived at Temuka fpr three or four years. There were two children. Witness had visited • Kaikoura, where she heard that Norton had been married before. She had spoken to Norton about the matter and he had said that he believed Mrs Norton was dead. She was dead to him. The Magistrate (to the Chief-Detec-tive): That is the exact mental attitude. Is there any Maori in this witness?—No.

Detective-Sergeant O’Brien said that accused had made a statement which he would not sign. Accused, in the statement, said that he thought that if he had lived apart from his wife for seven years, he would be able to marry again. Mr Bowie drew the Court’s attention to section 224, sub-section 5, of the Crimes Act, 1908. The Act states, “No one commits bigamy by going through a form of marriage if he or she has been continually absent from his or her wife or husband for seven years then last past, and is not proved to have known that his wife or her husband was alive at any time during those seven years.” Addressing the Court, Mr Bowie said that between 1914 and 1928, Norton had not seen or communicated with his first wife, and it had not been proved that he had known that she was alive. In view of the section, counsel submitted that it was not a case for the Supreme Court. Chief-Detective Carroll said that they could not prove what accused thought. lie knew that she was living with his cousin when he left her. Norton pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed, self in £IOO and one surety of £IOO.