The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-07-04 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF
BIGAMY.

At the Derby Borough Police-court, on Friday, Cecil
Anthony Fernando, aged thirty-three, a medical
student, who has for some time past been re-
siding at Glasgow, was brought up on remand,
charged with having married with Mary Ann
Snaith, aged twenty-four, a native of Boston, Lincoln-
shire, his first wife, Eliza Fernando, being still alive.
Mary Ann Snaith was also charged with aiding and
abetting Fernando to conintit a felony. The latter
appeared on her bail. Owing to the great amount if
interest the case excited, the Court adjourned to the
large Guildhall upstairs. The female pri once was
fashionably attired, having on a blue silk dress, black
silk jacket, white bonnet and fall, &c.
• • ••

.
Mr. Leech, i.olicitor, Derby, appeared for the prose-
cution; and Mr. Harwood, solicitor, Boston (guardian
of the female prisoner), for the defence.
Mr. Leech said he should now proceed with and com-
plete the charge of bigamy against the male pris oner,
as laid under the 24th and 25th of Victoria, chap. 100,
section 57. Mr. Leech then read the Irish Acts of
Parliament having reference to marriages of Roman
Catholics in that country, and then called the following
evidence :

Mr. Newbold, superintendent registrar of marriages
for the Derby district, said he knew the two prisoners.
Early in February last Mr. Fernando called upon him,
and, in consequence of what he told him, he called
again on the 12th February, and gave him notice of
his marriage. [Produced.] It was signed by Cecil
Antonio Fernando, and witnessed by witness. On the
14th February Fernando called upon him again, accom-
panied by Mary Ann Frances Snaith, and he there-
upon performed the ceremony of marriage between
them.

he Rev. Father Daniel Jones said: I am a Roman
Catholic priest, residing at Miltown-park, in the arch.
diocese of Dublin. I knew the prisoner Fernando
and his first wife about four years ago. Mr. Fernando
called upon me at Miltown-park, in 186.3, with a letter
of introduction. He introduced a young woman to
me as 'rs. Fernando, and I think the lady before me
is the same, but I am not perfectly certain, as I have
not seen her for four years. Fernando told me there
had been a marriage between them in Scotland. Later
on, representations were made to me by Fernando and
his wife that she had not gone to a Protestant Church
for a considerable time, more than a year, and that
she had gone to a Catholic Chapel for a considerable
time also. I saw Fernando on several occasions before
. . .

I married them. Between the end of December,
1863, and the 25th January, 1864, I prepared the
young woman (Shaw) for reception into the Catholic
Church. It is a religious and spiritual work which
has to be performed, even if the parties have openly
professed the Catholic faith. They represented
to me that they had abstained from going to a Fro-
testant church for more than a year, and that during
that time they had regularly attended the Catholic
chapel. I think it was Fernando told me that When
this was told me I examined her carefully to find out
the date when she first began to go to the Catholic
chapel, but she could not satisfy me as to the exact
date, as it depended upon some change of lodgings.
'that was the impression upon my mind from the cer-
tificate which I have here, and also an original letter
which I addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin, who
is now the Cardinal. I obtained the original letter
back on the 22nd of June last from the Cardinal's
secretary. The letter, addressed to the Archbishop,
is dated the 25th of January, 1864. [A portion of
the letter was read, and in which it was stated that
he (Father Jones) had reason to believe Mrs.
Fernando has been a Catholic for more than twelve
_ _

months.] On the 25th of January, MCA, I
married Cecil Fernando to Mix. Shaw. I per-
formed the usual kind of ceremony, according to the
ritual, and such marriages between Catholics are un-
questionable, according to the Irish law. The marriage
was canonically a public marriage, and performed by
myself in the presence of two witnesses, named Salvato ;
Spitra and Michael Azzopardi. It is not a fact that
this was considered a mere Hooting on a former
marriage. I did not believe in a former marriage. It
is not a fact that Fernando and his wife were entrapped
into it by myself. I undertook the matter at Mr.
Fernando's request It is not a fact that previous
cohabitation will annul a marriage in Ireland. I saw
Fernando and his wife occasionally for a short time
after they were married. In September. 186 a. I
received some printed circulars from Mr. Fernando.
He was then trying to get an appointment in a college
at Dublin. With theft printed circulars was a private
letter addressed to me, and reminded me of having
married him. [The letter was a very long one, anti
; was read by the Magistrates' clerk.] The letter was
dated from London, Oct. 24, Pa.

,
Croas.csainined by Mr. Harwood: I produce a copy
of the private memorandum of the Archbishop as to
the marriage liavinz taken place. I took a copy of it
myself from the Archbishop's register.
_ _ . _ . -

_
Mr. Harwood : I have got a document from Dr.
Cullen. _ .

Father Jones : I performed the marriage on the
25th January, 1864. I Mai competent to marry them.
I had special powers for this marriage. I was quite
aware of the state of the English law at that time in
reference to marrying one who had been a Protestant
within twelve months. I told the Archbishop there
had been a valid marriage between the parties, but
there had been no legal marriage, and that the female
was a convert to the Catholic faith. I took the
statement of the valid marriage in Scotland from Mr.
Fernando.

Mr. Harwood read a letter from Mr. Moran, the
Archbishop's secretary, in October, 1867, which said
the entries would not be made in the books unless there
was evidence of a former marriage in Scotland.
Mr. Leech contended that this statement was
incorrect, and
Father Jones said Mr. Moran was not in Ireland at
the time of the marriage. I was acquainted with Miss
Shaw in December, 1883, and married her to Mr.
Fernando on 25th January, 18.4. I might have
written a letter to the prioress at the nunnery at
Donnybrook in reference to preparing Miss Shaw for
reception into the Catholic Church.
11,r. Harwood produced a copy of the letter, but the
Bench would not admit it in the absence of the original,
and it was bben gintv,l that Fernando had written this

copy..
ather Jones I might have written a letter to that
effect, and which was dated the 30th September, 184.3.
On the 22nd January, 1814, I received powers
from Dr. Cullen to receive Miss Shaw into the
Church and baptise her. The letter produced is in
my handwriting. [lt WIIS a letter written to the
Archbishop stating that he (Father Jones) assisted
at the marriage and ble.sed it.] It is not necessary
that they should receive communion on entering the
Catholic Church. I wrote the letter produced three days
after Miss Shaw's marriage, Aiding when the first
communion would take plass. I never told Mr.