The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-21 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Yesterday a person named Edward Roche was
brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged with inter-
marrying with Elizabeth Flack, his former wife being
still alive. _

It appeared that the prisoner was married in Cork
26 years ago, and that after living with his wife about
seven years he deserted her, and left her doatitute
with three young children. About five years ago he
met with Elizabeth*lack, and having married her, he
took the Sun public-house in Heddon-street. The
first wife having obtained information of her hus-
band's proceedings, came over to England, and, find-
ing that she was renounced by her husband, threw
herself upon the parish, in order to compl hint to
allow her a maintenance. The second wife having
been put in possession of unquestionable evidence of
the prisoner's infamous conduct towards her, immedi-
ately separated from him and took a coffee-shop in
Sherrard• street.

In proof of the double marriage, the first wife was
put in the witness-box. She produced her certificate.
Mr. HARDWICK said that the evidence of this wit-
ness could nit be received. The first marriage must
be proved, not by the wife, but by witnesses.
The wife said all the witnesses were deal but one,
and that one was living in Cork.

Mr. Heanwicil said the question now appeared to
be one of expense—who was to defray the expense
of procuring the personal attendance of the witness?
A solicitor, who attended on behalf of the prisoner,
said, even admitting that clear evidence could be
brought forward of the validity of the first marriage,
a point, however, in dispute, he had a complete answer
to the charge. He would admit that the first and
second marriages had taken place, and his answer
was that the defendant could not be called upon to
pay the penalty of bigamy, inasmuch as he had lived
apart from his wife for more than seven years. The
9th of George IV., chapters 31 and 32, expressly
stated that when either husband or wife continually
remained absent from each other fur the space of
seven years then last past, and had not been known
by the other to be living within that time, "that he
should not be liable to the consequences of bigamy."
He could prove that the alleged first wife and the
defendant had no intercourse or communication with
each other for ten or twelve years, and that therefore
the husband had a perfect right to consider his first
wife dead, she being really dead in law, and to marry
again.
Mr. Haßnwicx wished to know how proof could
be given that the party charged with bigamy did not
know of the existence of his wife ? the solicitor
said he apprehended it was not necessary to furnish
any proof. It was only necessary to show that the
parties had been asunder for seven years, and that they
had had no communication with one another for that
period, to entitle a party to the benefit of that clause.
Mr. Haanwicx said, such a construction of the
Act involved a manifest absurdity. According to
this view of the law, it was only necessary for either
husband or wife to conceal him or herself for a space
of seven years to entitle them to marry again without
rendering themselves liable to an indictment for
bigamy. In the present case, the husband deserted
his wife and family. He knew where to find them,
but they knew not where to find him. He chose
voluntarily to conceal himself from them for more
than the space of seven years ; there was no want of
evidence of the existence of his wife, and it brought
him within the meaning of the Act.
The solicitor said he would not attempt to argue
the rationale of the Act. What he contended for
was, that a penal Act ought to be literally and
strictly construed. The Court must look to the
words, and must be guided by their plain meaning.
The Act in question did not require the husband to
make himself acquainted with the existence of his
wife, any more than it required the wife to know
that the husband was alive. However, he proposed
to reserve further discussion on the objection, as he
was in a situation to disprove the validity of the first
marriage.
Mr. Haitnwica said, the first step would be to
procure evidence of the first marriage, as the parties
were not in a situation to defray the expense, and
application must be made to a judge at the Central
Criminal Court, to allow a sufficient sum to cover
the necessary charges.
Police-sergeant Whall was then desired to make
arrangements for procuring the attendance of the sur-
viving witness of the first marriage.
The defendant was then remanded for a week.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Yesterday a miserable-looking man, named Cannell,
stated to have formerly been a milkman in lloxton,
waited upon Mr. Broughton, and asked his advice.
The applicant said—l am a native of Ely, in Cam-
bridgeshire, but had a good business in Hoxton here,
for many years, until I unfortunately went out of
my mind. When I came out of the madhouse, in
July last, I attended to my trade as usual, but an-
other man started in the same business in opposition
to me, I was ruined by it. Finding myself in
this state, I applied to Mr. Coste, the relieving officer
of Shoreditch, and asked him to write a letter for me
to the board of guardians to my native place, asking
them for only 3/. or 4/. to set me up again, and, as
I am very well known to several gentlemen down
there, I was certain of receiving the money. But
Mr. Coste told me he sihould not do any such thing,
and I was obliged to go and get work as a common
sewer labourer, and worked in that manner all through
the last winter.

. _
Mr. BIOUGHTON-Why do you not try to get work
now ? Cannell—l can't ; there is no surgeon in the
country would say that I am fit for work now, for
while I was employed at the sewer-work a few weeks
ago, and standing on the edge of a bank that was
thrown up, a wretch of a boy came behind me, and
pushed me down into the sewer, by which three of my
ribs were dislocated.

Mr. BROUGHTON—Why did you not give the boy
into custody ? Cannell—l could not, for I was so
stunned and injured that they carried me home imme-
diately, and before I had sense enough to think about
it, the boy had gone away. The foreman of the works
of course discharged me, and gave me 45., but that
was of no use in my state, and I applied to the parish
for assistance, but they refused to give me anything,
and though I have applied a great number of times
since, they still refuse me,
Staines (the beadle of Shoreditch)—l don't know
anything of the case myself, Sir, but I will give him
an order for the house immediately, if he likes to
go in.
Cannell—The order's of no use to me, for they
won't take me in—l know they won't—they've told
me so several times—unless my wife and children go
in too. My wife has the strongest dislike possible to
go in, and is determined not, and as she can contrive
to keep herself out of the house, though she can't
support me too, I am willing to separate myself from
her and go into the house by myself ; but they will
not take me in alone, and here am I wandering about
almost starving, for I have not had a bit or sup in my
mouth all this day.
Mr. BROUGHTON—But, as that is the case, why
don t you try to perFeL-.,;,
house with your wife to !3o into the
0111 Cannell---She determined not,
and cant force her to do it. I have pawned and
sold everything I had that would fetoh any money, till
now I have not got anything more to sell. It's very
hard to be refused relief, after paying rates for many
years.
Mr. BROUGHTON—Perhaps you have not properly
explained yourself to the parish authoritiet if
you had I should think they would take you in at
once, and pass you in the regular way as soon as
possible to your native place.
Cannell—Oh, yes, I have, Sir ; I have explained it
a great many times, but it's all of no use, for they
won't listen to it, and tell mo as positively as possible
that they don't intend to take me in unless my wife
goes in too, and that she won't.
Mr. BRONGHTON—WeII, I'll give you, is. from the
poor-box, to provide you with food am lodging for
to-night, and one of the officers shall call upon Mr.
Costs, and explain to him the nature of your applica-
tion and the distress you are in. dare say thh
officer's intercession on your behalf will induce Mr.
Comte to take you into the house without your family,
and pass you in the regular way to your own Parish: