The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1882-07-25 00:00:00

A verdict of not guilty was taken on the first Indict.
meat, sad the sentence was deferred.

perfectly well that her husband was living, and pro-
bably later than that. Oily about two years after.
wards, in 1877, she married Watts. Whether locker
was in fault or the woman, the question was—Did they
not believe that abe knew , when she married locker, that
her husband was alive? She went under the name of
Watt*, stating that she bad an uncle named Watts,
who lived somewhere In the neighbourhood. L”ctrer
finds out more about her; be finds that she did know
of the existence of Bites, her first husband. If the
jury were satisfied that she knew of the existenc f
' Biles within Wen years, as alive, then she had no
right to marry anyone else. and he urged that at
different times, clown to quite recently, she did pro-
bably know.
Mr. Willa' said that Mr. Lewis bad rema-ked the
jury probably would think that in 1873 th primner
had some knowledge that her huebani Bile. wie elite;
but that was not a matter they could " think '' at alt;
they must be positive. 'rho fact was not clearly
established—how had the prosecution attempted to
prove that Bios was sues? They bad pr educed •
letter signed "George," and they produced George's
father, • man who could neither read or write. All
down to the present moment that p or woman says it
is not her husband's handwriting --
Tue Judge remarks! she had
Dir. Willer' said she mall so thr .ugh him.
The Judge suggested that he couli not giro evidence
of that.

INDICINT ASSAULT AT GILLINGHAM.
Austin How, who had been out on bail, was indicted
for indecently &smutting Mary Ann diayteroat Gilding'
hem, on June 18th.
hir. Symonds prosecuted, instructed by Mr. Nodder ;
Mr. Coleridge, instructed by Mr. Trevor Davies
defended.
A few days before the alleged assault promoutrix
was out walking with the prisoner, and on the day in
question walked with him lie carried her down •
lane, and attempted an offence, which she resisted,
and at lad gut away home.
The prominutr.s., who is young and rather pleasing
in apiessranoe, said on Thursday before Sunday, 18th,
she wslked with d fondant, and on the 18th she met
him on the railroad.bribge. She was with Messrs.
E 'wards and Gough, and Mary Metheledge. How
wished her "Good eVelling." and asked her to take a
welk. which she at first ref used, but afterwards went
am far as Mrs. Voss's, when they turned, and walked
back to Brickyard-lane, when he would not let her
go any further, put his arm round her waist and her
hand, and pulled her about 60 yards down the lane.
There is no other h ,use there. Prosecutrix then
described the attempt to assault, she resisted, and
tried to h but he pressed his hand against her
throat, lie said "It is no use your trying to get
away," but she struggled about three minutes; he let
go, and she ran away home, and saw her uncle and
aunt. She was crying, her uncle asked her what was
the matter, and she told him.
Orms-examined : My uncle keeps a shop about ten
minutes from the prisoner, and I have seen him there.
On Thursday I was walking with two other., Miriam
Fishlock, a boy named Shute, and How came up and
walked with me around the same lane. We met on
Liddon Bridge, Shaftesbnry.road. Did not meet him
by appointment. We did not keep quite altogether
that night; Miriam Fishlock and Shute were behind
How and me on the road from hiageston ; but we did
not go down the road. He used improper words that
evening, but she did not know what he meant.
The depositions were read over to her. On
being shown the deposition, she admitted hay.
ing said before the magistrates that she understood.
They met shout the same place on Sunday, and she
went with him in the same direction, and a little later.
It was quite opposite Voes's cottage when prisoner
used force to her' but she could not give any warning
of what happened. Her throat was swollen, and she
showed it to him. When he let her go; she did not
*cream, bicaam her throat was so tender; his hand
was on her throat about 30 yards, and about 30 pads
it was clear. If she had screamed the people in the
cottage would bays beard her; a railway station was
near, but she did not complain to any porters.
Told the magistrates the assault was successful.
Had told her uncle to go and me the young man • she
wanted him to see them so to see who was in &ult.
Did not any that if Au.tin How would pay something
or sign somethisg nothing would be said. (Ibis was
, written on the depositions.) Did not under tend her
uncle returned amine that young How would neither
, pay nor ago. (This also was written on the depis
tion signed by prosecutrix ; but she protested she did
not understand so.)
Re-examined: One of her arms was • weak one.
Prosecutor's uncle, a harness-maker, of Gillingham,
stated that his niece came home crying, with her
clothes dirty. He went to see How, who asked him
not to say anything about it, and he would make it up.
He told him he should let the law make it up. He
had not asked the prisoner to pay something to make
it up.
Cross-examined: If How had apologised he would
have forgiven him.
Q.: Did you not go to H father to settle the
lease for money?
I A.: I would not have received any; I stopped the
police-constable from acting in the matter until after
I had seen Mr. How.
' Ann Ford, wife of the last witness, gave evideece as
to the state of the prosecutor's clothes.
Mr. Symonds, in reviewing the evidence, contended
that the girl was not • consenting party, as was proved
from the fact that on reaching home the girl complained
to her uncle and aunt.
The Hon. B. Coleridge, for the defence, made an
eloquent speech, remarking that after the overtures
made by the prisoner on the first occasion he walke I
ont with the proeecutrix, she, two days afterwards,
went for another walk with him, and in the same
direction as they went on the previous oc-asion. Tble
conduct, he argued, wai not that of • pure and chaate
girl. fie was glad that the prisoner, for his own sake
had not c =promised the CYO, and he hoped they ( he
jury) would by their verdict show the same. Would
they, if their daughter had been outraged by a young
man against her will, hove said, as the prosecutrix's
uncle had done, " Apologi.e and I will my no more
about it." lie contended that the facts proved that
she was a conaenting pa-ty.
His Lordship then somuie I up, and after a consulta-
tion the Jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he
was discharged.

Mr. Wines said the prosecution coill only produee
a girl who was only ten year. of 540 when she saw
him write, and rho said that was his handwriting. If
the jury were to come to the conclurion that this
woman knew in 1850 that her first husband. Bit., was
alive, it woul I not be a safe thing to do. The fa• her,
mother, and sister all distinctly told thorn tot they
were at enmity with this woman, and the lather that
be knew perfectly well there was squirrel, the children
were left with tee woman, who kept them a. lug 114
she could, and, after doing to, she rent tbeei t , the
Union. A woman in her pennon was perfectly ready
to go away with Watts, and it waa only at
the instigation of the clergyman of the parish that she
married Watts. Seeing that Watts was an accumolice
in that, they must be very careful a. in what they
believed. Watts got tired of her, and picket up with
soother woman, ill-treated the prisoner, end then gut
rid of her under the plea that her marriage 11/4111 a
bigamous one. But she was not indicted fir that,
even if it were so. They lost sight of Ii runt they
found her comfortably installed in • houwkeeper's
place at Mr. Blake's. Locker met her, fell in love
with her, proposed marriage, and was accepted. But
Ii was miming in her mind that she was Watt's
wife; Locker admit, that else only stated her 'elf to be
Watt's wife, and IL was only afterward., when losses
came on, when the residence they had was found too
expensive, that Locker, in his turn, got tired of the
woman, and he was now come forward to irosecete
her for bigamy, and Lock r allege 1 this as the pilings
of the woman', knowledge about her husband—she
said she knew Biles wee alive, through the te,rt..mistreas
at Netherbury. Here he complained of the prosecu-
tion. At Netherbury there was that postrwistress ;
but where was she to-day. It was iela ti n.y the
woman could not have been Rubtuntaed, I.ut they had
made enquiries, and the result was the post.inistress was
not here to-chay, and 'secret for the first time intro lucee
that statement about the hearing of her husband from
the children at the Union, leaving the defen..e at the
last moment Without a single opportunity of c ultra-
dieting what was alleged. How oni d plie know
They said f row the postmistress, but where were the
ethos authorities, • single clerk, ,r any one t ray .:re
knew of a letter frm America? It grad ,ar
the Post-office authorities weld not be sub,.re.raed, or
this was not • State secret. Thou, as to the del, ...
onions, is was nonsense to say that the inagi-tr des'
clerk did not take down all, for every ~ne who had
watched these thing. in • court knew the dep ,ritioas
are taken down m set carefully, yet Lo ker ventures
t• correct his statemeut. lie (Mr. Wirlea)
that it was never said that she had if rmati n from
the father, mother, and the children ; but that it was
an afterthought. As to Watts, be was ii..t a willing
witness; ha was an accomplice he warn dragged nitt
by Mr. Locker. but now he joined forces with Mr.
Locker to say everything he can *tidiest • his woman.
He knew he ill-treated 62r and went with an..thre
woman. Locker knew be got tired of hr, airl rid
her to go back to Netherbury, and in cons:lnn a Mr.
Wines asked the jury to say the evidence was unit
suffidant to convict the woman of this neriou. cheep.
The Judge piloted out that it being proo d the
woman was married to Biles, the next quasi n was
whether, he haeing been away for seven year.,
she was aware during that peel it that
he was alive. It was id• .red that on Julie
18 h, 1805, she was married to Biles, and iii
Aus,t Lt. 1877, she went through the cent]i by of
marriage with Watts, but she wa not cnar.ed with
bigamy in that. It L. not to be supposed to er e car, be
tw.) vsll I marriages of A person, the hod hurlmud or
wife being alive, the second mai-rime:would be invalid,
although it emanatsd to be somenini,. eumouresl Gil.“
luau can have three or four wives, or a woman thiee or
tour Milhaud., but though either melee bed g
prosecuted for bigamy, the other marriage. r niarna,:w
are invalid. Was Bites silos? tie hat been in the
habit rI writ:rig home, not of Leo, an •I a 1, dui loar
letter C sale, the sister .1.1 it WA, ii thin hatilWillkilc
of George; it eonainenc.ol " D an father and 1111414,1,"
and was named •• George," and ad lresaest t i Nlr.
l'howas lilies, Weytowu. Netherbuty, near Ikaum,
ater, Dorset, En.d...cl. No other person but this
Ge .rge Biles would hare written and reigned thus,
threfora there was strong evidence he was alive when
the weean married Locker. Did she ki.ow It
Watts said he told her three or four years before
they were married that George's hr thee was g dug
to bins; she said. he hao gone seven years, and they

THURSDAY.

His Lordship took his seat at 11, when the cam of
MARRYING THREE HUSBANDS
Was called on. The prisoner Sarah Bile., whoae are
was Mattel in the Cal.n.lar as 30, was indicted fir
feloniously marrying William Locker, George Bile.
her former husband, 1, whom she previously married,
being then alive, at Southampton, on the 91. h August,
1880.
Mr. H. W. Cox, of Bridport, who had been calle
on the jury, asked to be excused as he was personally
acquainted with the prosecutor, who was his next door
neighbour.
Mr. Pitt-Lewis, instructed by Mr. Jolliffe, Crew-
kerne, prosecute I, and Mr. Willes defended, instructed
by Mr. Howard, of Weymouth.
Prisoner, on being called ti plead, said: I am not
guilty of any kn ,wledge f my f inner husband.
Mr. Pitt. win said Sarah Biles was charged with
having married a man name! Watts aud another man
name I L icker, during the lifetime of her first
husband, Locker's case being the subject of this
charge. It appeared that in the year 186.5 this
woman, whose m ad len name wan Gilham, was married at
Netherbury to George Riles. They lived together some
yeare,an 1 had three children. George Biles left her,the
children, and the country, and the children were placed
in the workhouse ; G-orge hues, he believed, made no
proviaim for them, though he ha 1 left the country.
He wrote to his father, mother, and his sisters.
Matters went on till 1877, when the prisoner went
through the ceremony of marriage in Wales with •
man named Watt.. It appeared that she had been
living at Bistro, the place in Wales. with Watts, and
the clergyman there induced them to marry to put an
end to • scandal, and married them for nothing. ID
1880 the prisoner was married on Oh Angled to •
person named Locker, at All Saints, Southampton,
giving the name of Sarah Gillman. In order to find
her guilty, the man having been absent more than
moven years, the prosecution would have to prove that
the prisoner knew, at mime time within seven years,
that the husband was alive. It would be shown that
in 1877 prisoner knew that Biles was alive, but, be
that as it may, Locker would say that he was told in
October (the marriage with him having taken place in
Aurust) that she had been married to Biles, and that
she knew he was alive. If this was proved it would
be the strongest evidence that she did know that the
former husband, Bile., was living.
Charles Tixard. gardener, Hein: at Crewkerne, said
he was a witn. sr to the maniere of George Biles to the
prisoner.
Thomas Biles, father of George Biles, said his son
married the erisoner. She afterwards went to
America, and had been there about ten years. They PERJURY AT T iiE ASSIZES,
had heard from him, receiving the last letter about • A farmer namrd Henry Bowditch, described as but
year ago, who looked older, and yet •a, of imperfect instruc-..0n,
. Cress-examined : Wore not your son and hi. wife WY indicted for •ilfral aud corrupt perjury at the Assam
Separated by the magistrates ! at Bombast.% on Janu.ry 21st. nisonor looked r•Lier
No, air. The prisoner kept the children as long as delectel and est down during most f the time.
she
the don B. Coleridge prosecuted. instructed he Mr.
c ruld, and when they were placed in the Union Trevor Davies, of Sherbert:le, and Mr. Matthews. untracted
I did not tell the Guardians where my eon was. by Kr. 11 'ward, of Weymouth, eras for the defence.
Jane Sarah 8i1e.., sister to Georges said they had The prosecuting conned, in opening, stated that at the
heard from him several times since he had been away. Met Assizes there was what was celled an iuterpleader
He had never sent home any money for the children. Wise tried In thw court. Judgment had been recovered
The letter produced was in his handwriting, and was against Welter Mullett. and an execution levied ,a the
received about • year ago. term he appeared to be occupying.. Bat Henry Withers
Elizabeth Biles, mother of George, rail she had Mullett, las non. into, an I said the farm AMA the it. role
another eon besides George in America, and hal heard wnre his. and the jou., was triol to see it the go 41 Were
the (stages Of the eons. During the trial three receipts
from both of them. were put in, e.h luidorting ti be for a hall-year's rent
Croingewunned : She hal never told her son's paid by H. William Mullett to Henry Bowditco, and to to
wife that she had heard from her husband, named by nowditeh, and Bowditch swore that he gave the
James Watts, labourer, said he was at one time in receipt. and wrote his name across the stamp, on the
the 13th Regiment, but was dischargsd. He afterwards dotes they bore; viz in April and Dectuater MO, and
made the acquaintance of the pria .ner, and in the filay,lBB, 1. Neowene name wait:rittenwinise.t,hre
nw
year 1877 he was married to her in Walea She left inland
issued tilr.runluy anl altehotglizitt,litcns rit.te'nt7.o,nt
him about three year@ ago. Ifs knew that she had was called to thaw, he teeraiSte t iii sweUing tuat he did
children, and she used to visit them. She once so Mtn on the dates the me pa bore.
told him that George's brother was going out to Mr. J. Trevor ll..vies pro Weed documents he had
hint, obtained from the Judge at the couclusnon ot the last
What did she say about George? trial; but Lnd Lindley luting the pri.Oner Wan tl.
She used to tell me that she knew he was living, to have loam ono put en oath in the mater, Mr. Trevor
That was before I went to Wales. She said he had Davieethen scoreev,denece ow onl hoard . be .tg,ieul the rt.'? n.ng ron" ;ITlairs
been gone !Wenn year., and we could get married. that
named, 1rb7,0, his „tte„,j7n was specially hailed ~ he
Cross-examined : When you were in Wales the
..ird U'uilaf s r ustics thus: **II I were to tell you that thoc
clergyman told you about being married? stamp. were not issued till after the dates which the
Told her. recripts bear, do you still adhere to your statement?'
And that is the reason you got married ! In cross-examination. Mr. Trevm Dewier said Mulidt
Yes. cleim-d certain property et Woodrow Perm. of which he
Did you ever ill-treat her? soilbe hut been the tenant sometime. The interolthier
No. action Was between William Henry Mullett and Drake
and his wife. The judgment was against Walter !Auden,
Bid she not complain of illmsage? the father. Mr. Trevor Davise was tiltritlol2td &NMI.
Not to me. another agreement or receipt which was produced at the
How long after did you pick up with another girl? trial, and appeared to be of opinion such an use ens seen,
About four months rafter, when she married Locker. but will not regularly in evidence—apparently because rd
William Locker said he married the prisoner, and insufficiency of aternp. Be thought prisoner can worm
lived with her four months and a fortnight. She did for liq2"'
not tell him she had been married before until two Mr... W. Young. reporter of the Dorset County Chf,sick,
said he was present when the cam came before the I, .rd
months afterwards. She had gone in the name of Chief Justice, and heard prieon.r sworn. lie remembered
Watt., and on his enquiring the reason she told him Lord Coleridge warning him.
that she had married amen named Watts. He after- Supt. Coward said be received three receipts from Lord
wards found out that she had married a man named C dendge, who gave the prisoner into custotly for perjury.
Bile., and had three children with him. She had Cress-examined :He came to the conclusion that the
beard that he had gone to America, and that her pnsiner had been drinking, and heavily.
children whilst in the Union bad told her that letters Joan Lawrence Legg, clerk at the Post-Office, stated
had been received from their father. She ale told that the adhesive stamps cmld not have been issued before
July, 1881.
him that she heard of her husband through the John Dyson, head clerk at the Poet-Office, said the
Netherbury Poateifftee, but she never mentioned any stamps were not issued until July, 1411.
dates- John Ridout of Sturminster, said he saw the pruner
Cross-examined: You met and married her at Salis- in November, 1831, at the Antelope at Hazslbury. Ile
bury ?—I did, heard him tal king about the action to be tried bawler:a
You proposed to marry her? the Drakes' and Mullett's, and the accused said he would
I did after she had made up her mind. (A langh.)
swCearrommeyxanothiugineri l'irntatobse &k'
erDwrasil'i the worse for liquor.
You proposed before ahe had made up her mind! Mr. Matthews urged it most be proved, before the Jail
She told Me that she was • housekeeper, and I Pre' could convict prisoner, that what he stated was sedan
posed to her, and with • corrupt—not necessarily that be was to have
After two months you quarrelled! money for it—but with • dishonest intention. Be urged
So would anyone. also that the aubetanCe of What prisoner swore WM sot
Trade was not so good then! ruling di.'
abut Lord t oLtbindeiceyase4.anddectoldk hiyisaillabn.tiph'usmof opinion on hi ;
Never mind about that.
You stated that you bad losses! it was materiel. Mr. Matthews urged that the prisoner
She robbed me. had not the slightest interest, pecuniary or otherseisa, is
the encomia of Mullet of the failure of Drake.'; and also
Did you tell her to go back to Netherbury! urged that prisoner was not sober, but swore recklmail.
I drove her to the a:ation, and told her I Would and that even after it had been so put to him that a Doter
pay_ her fare. man must have perceived danger. Although, as is often
Mr. Pitt-Lewis said they had heard what his learned beard in courts of justice, drunkenness is no ex ruse for
friend, Mr. Will.. had sant but as • matter of justice crime, yet amen who had lost poveasion of his senao
In
there was something more than what was in the drink could not be supposed to know what he was :1010,S:
depositions that Locker did say, and the jury would al
Vied act however
tte7,Yylentigitt could not Li77:rwi. dOns
form their °pinkie as to whether he did mit any many wilt tally and dishonestly.
thing,' which were not taken down, letter by letter. Henry Thorne. auctioneer at Sturminster, said he WY
The fact of these marriages was establiabrai beyond all instructed to distrain on prisoner's farm for balf-a-yeark
doubt, and they had it all quite clearly eetablished that rent. He levied. He SIM the prisoner, and also a men
Mrs. Watts or Mrs. Riles knew very well how to find named William Henry Mullett on the Premises
,11,1
out about her husband, and that she had enquired at amount distrathed for was Li 2 10a. The prig. her re,,
the Post-Office about him. His family were more or of a
lees in communication with him, and about 1875 his a sheriff's execution. After t
M to
brother went out, and this woman met have known "w"'"""t -
Mrawith William alin* was banded him.
.thSetgroettgwhoi, and under-let to Mullett. On tg,ll".h

could get married.
That w. not an uncomm an notion—that a persen
wh a hal been left sore.i years could get married
again ; taut that is not sufficient ; the pen it left mug
not have known during that seven >ears that the ..thee
was alive. He says, she told him that she bad hest. I
from her own parents and knew he we alive, at.d he
rOOCII4 ts have born aware that her huslostnl wrote
haute. She married Locker, awl the c rtdictte
describei her ao Sarah (Wham, s meter, so th.it she
told a lie on the lac, of that. The Judge then left tu
the Jury the question its had stated, and
'[he Jury found her guilty.
On being .keei if stir had anythin4 to say why sea'
tence should not be passed,
Prisoner said: trait only say that I am n.,t gunty.
I never have, by letter or by Pusts•li‘e auth 'rites,
kn awn of Ileorge Biles being alive. Unfortunately my
in .ther is blind, and cannot canna heie. I have hal to
defend the case myself, out of my own ta:d labour.
It is utterly wrong all they have said as to my knoN•
ledge of my husband.
'the Judge: Be it so. You have no bush:ieu to
marry three people, two of whom were alit to your
knowledge at the same time. And why ii y.. 0
that lie on the certifizate of your marciao wit
L icker ?

Prisoner: It was Locker that seduced me to do it.
The Juda: Ido IlOt litre your atteuipti to oe
younielf offeean honest women. You h ,va t
prisou for one m 'nth, and, in c onsideration of that
you must go for two months' hard labour.

Joseph House, the boy who Wal convicted ye.t:r
wag brought up for sentence.
The Judge said : I certainly d not intend to gco I y
to pris in. That will u 4 do you any goo.l. I i,,••• I
you to be wh pped, to give you ano.her chance
au honest and good by. You will be a-nt•iic It
imprisoned for three dos, and receive 12 ,tr k v, •
the birch rod, anti! hope you will be an honest by
after that.