The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-08-13 00:00:00

TRIAL FOR BIGAMY-NOT GUILTY.

At the York Assizes, Emma Dixon Georges,
described in the calendar. alias Emma Dixon Her.
ridge, alias Emma Dixon Wallace, was charged with
bigamy. The case was a very singular tine. The
prisoner is a pretty young woman of about 24 years of
age, and niece of the Rev. Mr. Hepworth.

J Ames Marshall Brooks was present on the 21st of March,
1501, when the prisoner, who was then only 16 yeans obi,
was married in the presence of two witnesses at the parish
church of Over Poorer. In Cheshire. to Charles Pooley
Georges, a lit utenant In the Royal Navy. The witness saw
him in Scarborough when before the magistrate, the month
before last ; till then he had not seen him since the mar-
riage, nine years ag lie knew that the prisoner and
Gorges lived together for two or three years. Gdorges had
behaved with very great cruelty to her, even to the extent
of personal violence. He had heard reports that she had
deserted him, and understood that he had never allowed her
any money.
A marriage was then proved between Frank Arthur lion.
ridge, aged 25. gentleman, with Emma Dixon Georges, aged
21, widow, at Scarborough, In June, 1866
Edwin Samuel liorridge said he lived at Cheltenham, and
his son had brought the prisoner to his house 1.1 his wife
about a fortnight after the marriage. He Is an °dicer 111 the
32nd Light Infantry, and is now too ill to give evidence.
The prieoner, who appeared to take great interest in the
trial, appeared to disbelieve this statement.
lu cromexamination the witness stated his son had not
appeared before themagistrate the month before last because
he was too 11l lie was then at Brecon, and now at Aberyst.
with, where he had gone only a week ago. The witness wa
asked if his son did not disapprove this prosecution, but his
Lordship thought the question immaterial. It was also sug-
gested that proceeding. for • divorce had been commenced
by Georges.
Thomas Jolly Death, a private detective, said the prisoner
stated, "In 1661 I married. man named Ge Irges. He never
had • farthing of money. He went to Australia. I heard
n 'this gof him till nee years ago. A letter came to me from
Westlsurne Park-terrace to say he was dying ; would I go
to Min 2 1 did not go, as my friends advised me that it might
he ruse of his to get hold of me again A few days after I
. _ .

hart lotter from Dr. Itbo.on to soy ho w.i joel. Four

years ago I married Mr. llorrldoe, at Scarborough'
Ills Loresblp sett I think It Is clear this holy believed
her u.‘bend to be dead, but an utiesce has been neverthelt as
collimated against the law, and 1 shall only pass a nominal
sentence

—.—
Mr Smith submitted, that, on the authority of " R r. Tur-
ner," reported in 0 Um, 145, she ought to be acquitted. Ile
also stated that he could show that the prisoner had re-
ceived a letter announcing the death of Georges.
fie then oiled Sir. Nelson, a surgeon, to prove that the
next nituoss to be called -ail uncle of the prisoner—was an
inmate of a lunatic asylum, and subject to deludons , but his
delusions had no reference to the circumstances of the pre-
sent trial, and he was quite competent to give evidence.
Mr. Frederick Thom .is Clapham mat accordingly called,
and slated that the prisoner seas staying with him when she
received a letter. lie had seas elicit for it since, but caulti
not find it. . .

--iii-aiti;Peon objected to the witnefe stating the content
of the letter

Ills L •rdship, to the prisoner : If you think fit to make a
datement as to that letter being destroyed you can do so,
although you are defended by counsel.
The Prisoner I believe it is destroyed I quite thought
he was dead, no I have no doubt I destroyed it. I have looked
for it.
. . . _

••••
Mr. Clapham the.. stated : I read the letter. IL announced
explicitly the death of Mr. Georges. I don't recollect If it

his Lordship : I think that is an end of the CAPP.
I must put it in point of form to the jury whether they
believe the prisoner received such a letter. In justice
to Mr. Horridge, I must say I think it was perfectly
right in him to prosecute this cane, in order to make it
clear that his son's marriage was void, or the son might,
perhaps, be indicted for bigamy at some time and have
some difficulty in proving the marriage with the prisoner
void. The only question before you is, did the prisoner
receive a letter saying that Mr. Georges was lead? If
you think to it will be your very pleasing and satis-
factory duty to say she is not guilty.
Verdict, Not Guilty.