Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 January 1939 |
| Published date | 01 January 1939 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3901200101 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
VOL. XII,
NO.1
POLICE JOURNAL
JAN.-MAR.,
1939
Recent Judicial Decisions
VALIDITY
OF THE
FIRST
MARRIAGE
IN
BIGAMY
R.
v. Morrison
IN
this case an appeal against conviction for bigamy on
the
ground (inter alia) that the first marriage was invalid was
dismissed.
In
spite of
that
fact the case serves as a useful
reminder
that
the validity of the first marriage is an essential
factor in cases of bigamy and
that
it is not sufficient always
simply to prove two ceremonies the first of which is assumed
to be legal and the second bigamous.
Morrison was convicted at Lewes Assizes of bigamy and
pleaded guilty to a charge of false pretences.
He
was sentenced
to 15 months' hard labour.
The
facts relating to the bigamy charge were as follows.
On March roth, 1938, Morrison went through a form of
marriage with Florence Ide, having five days previously
(March rrth) gone through a form of marriage with aMrs.
Holman.
In
his defence to
the
charge of bigamously marrying
Florence Ide, Morrison alleged
that
the marriage to Mrs. Hol-
man was not valid by reason of the fact
that
she had ahusband
living. On this point
Mrs.
Holman's evidence had been to
the
effect
that
she had married
Mr.
Holman in
June
1919,
that
they
had gone to Canada, and
that
she had last seen
Mr.
Holman in
Canada in 1928. She added
that
at the time of her marriage to
Morrisonshe had told the registrar,who performed the ceremony,
the above facts and
that
the registrar had said it was all rightand
that she could properly describe herself as a widow. No direct
evidence was given as to whether
Mr.
Holman was alive or
B
1
HE
2
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
dead, and the defence argued
that
the prosecution
must
estab-
lish
that
the ceremony entered into by
Mrs.
Holman and
Morrison was a valid one before they could substantiate a
charge of bigamy in respect of Morrison's marriage to Florence
Ide.
In
his direction to
the
jury
the Judge
had
made use of
these words:
"
The
marriage between the defendant and Mrs. Holman being
prima facie a lawful marriage, do you entertain any doubt about its
lawfulness in consequence of the evidence you have
heard?
If
you
think it may have been no marriage at all, then the prosecution will not
have proved that this man had two wives at the same time,
but
only
one, Mrs. Ide, because the first woman was not his wife if that is the
view you take of the evidence."
On
two occasions later in his summing up
the
Judge
referred to the defence set up, telling the
jury,
in effect,
that
if,
in spite of not actually believing it, they nevertheless con-
sidered it credible, they should acquit the defendant and
that
that
should be their verdict even though it might appear clear
that
the defendant went through the ceremony with
Mrs.
Ide,
believing
that
he was committing bigamy and only later
discovering this possible loophole.
In
spite of these directions the
jury
returned averdict of
guilty, and an appeal to
the
Court of Criminal Appeal followed.
The
grounds of the appeal were twofold,
the
main ground
being
that
the Judge had misdirected the
jury
in
that
he
had
left them
under
the
impression that, in
the
circumstances of
the present case, it was for
the
defendant to establish his
defence.
The
other ground was
that
Mrs.
Holman had been
cross-examined by the defence on the basis
that
she
had
said
nothing about her first marriage. She had in fact spoken of it
to police in another county, and this fact was elicited only in
re-examination, and the statement itself which was referred to
could not be produced.
It
was contended
that
its non-produc-
tion affected the minds of the jury.
In
giving the
judgment
of the Court of Criminal Appeal
Branson, J., said
that
in the opinion of the Court the summing
up at
the
trial had adequately directed
the
jury
on
the
law.
To continue reading
Request your trial