BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19477, 21 December 1925, Page 16

BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE

AGED MAORI’S OFFENCE. JUDGE TAKES LENIENT VIEW. Unusual circumstances were shown to exist in a case in which two Maoris appeared for sentence in the Supreme Court, at Auckland before Mr Justice Reed. Haora Areka Whareumu, aged 77, appeared on a charge of bigamy, and Rupi Hunia on a charge of having aided and abetted the offence. The case came from Toetoe, a Maori settlement on the Ohura River, in the KingCountry. Mr Singer appeared for both prisoners. Counsel said that 50 years ago Whareumu was married, but the parties soon separated, the wife to live with another man and the husband went to live with a Maori woman. There were eight children of the latter union, and the children had for a long time been urging Whareumu to marry their mother. The first wife was agreeable and was actually present at the ceremony which followed. Hunia, wlio performed the ceremony, was a celebrant of the Ratana church, but. had since resigned. He was a working man with a family dependent on him. He looked on the marriage as a, proper procedure. It was apparent that the parties believed the marriage would legitimise the children. It was not an ordinary case of a man running off with a woman, but the marriage

was simply for the sake ot the children. No great harm had been done, and counsel asked that the prisoners should not be sent to gaol. His Honour said he proposed to fine the minister and let the other man off on payment of costs. Rupi was the worst of the two, for he had been placed in a position of trust by the Maori church and had undertaken certain duties. It was necessary for the ■Maoris to know what was the law, and he could not accept the statement of Rupi that he. did not know ho was committng a breach of the. law. He must have known that unless a divorce was obtained the second marriage was not legal. However, His Honour took into consideration the fact that. Rupi had borne a good character, and his action was probably more or less thoughtless. He would be fined £lO and costs, in default three months’ imprisonment. As far as the old man was concerned, if he wished to regularise his relationship with the woman, he would first have to obtain a divorce from his first wife, and then marry the second woman. He was ordered to pay costs in default one month’s imprisonment. <