Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 05 Oct 1892
Page 5 Column 2
SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST TWO TAUNTON WOMEN.
The Prisoners before the Magistrates.
At the Taunton Police Court on Monday, before Colonel ALLEN, Lucy Jane NAPPER was charged with committing bigamy by marrying Henry NOWELL in October, 1879, and Corporal McHUGH, P A S L I, in September, 1892, her lawful husband, John NAPPER, being alive at the time. Cecilia Emily ROWLAND, a sister of the above, was charged with aiding and abetting Lucy NAPPER in committing the offence.
Mr C P CLARKE prosecuted, and Mr A G TAYLOR defended.
Mr CLARKE, in opening the case, said that he should show that both the prisoners performed acts which they knew to be wrong. They were sisters or half-sisters, and were the children of Sergt. Thomas BARNES. The prisoner NAPPER, whose maiden name was Lucy Jane BARNES, married a man named John NAPPER in 1876, at Holy Trinity Church, Taunton, and the parties lived together for some little time and eventually separated, but there were no divorce proceedings. In 1879 the woman contracted another marriage with a man named Henry NOWELL, at the Registry Office, Taunton. She was described as 19 years of age, and in that certificate was evidence of her illegitimacy, as no mention of her father's name appeared in the registrar <sic>. NOWELL subsequently died, and on the 28th May last the woman gave notice to the superintendant registrar of marriages for a marriage to take place at the Roman Catholic Church with McHUGH. The marriage, however, did not take place in accordance with the notice, and on the 9th September she managed to get a certificate in accordance with the notice given, which, however, had then expired. Prisoner was asked why the marriage had not taken place at the Roman Catholic Church, and some sort of an explanation was given. The superintendent then asked her if she had been married to NAPPER, and she said that it was her sister and not herself who had contracted that marriage. Mr DAWE, the registrar at the Taunton office, however, would not grant a second notice, and withheld a licence until he had seen prisoner's sister. NAPPER then went down to her sister, and Mr DAWE having put the question as to who married NAPPER, he had no reason to doubt the answer which was given him. The marriage consequently took place on the Sunday morning, but Mr DAWE was rather suspicious that all was not right, and would not allow the marriage to take place without the sister being present. The sister subsequently came and subscribed her name to the marriage register, as Lucy Jane ROWLAND. In consequence of certain information received after the event a warrant was issued against the prisoners.
Mr Wm Francis Bartlett DAWE, Superintendent Registrar of Marriages for the Taunton district, produced a notice signed by NAPPER on the 12th May of an intended marriage between McHUGH and NOWELL, which was to have taken place at the Roman Catholic church. He also produced a copy of the certificate of a marriage which took place between BARNES and NAPPER on August 28th, 1876. He further produced a certified copy of a register of a marriage between Henry NOWELL and Lucy Jane AUTTON on October 3rd, 1879(?). The notice produced, dated the 28th May, would expire on the 28th August. The Deputy Registrar of Marriages made a communication to him on the 18th September, and on the same day the defendant NAPPER came to his office to see him. He had a conversation with her. She told him that she went to the Roman Catholic church that morning to get married. He introduced the subject of the alleged marriage with John NAPPER at the Roman Catholic church, and she replied that she had not been married to him, but that it was her sister who had married John NAPPER. He ascertained the date of NAPPER's marriage, and also of her own marriage with NOWELL, and referred to the register. Witness drew her attention to the fact that in both marriages the christian names of the women were the same. To account for this she said that when Sergeant BARNES met her mother she was a little child, and to avoid talk she was passed off as her mother's sister, and she supposed that her half sister, who married NAPPER, was called after her. Witness drew her attention to the ages as stated in the register, which were of a complicated nature, and she could give no explanation. During the conversation he asked her if she was married to NAPPER, and she denied it. She gave as a reason for her not being married at the Roman Catholic church that she had not been admitted into the church, and that she did not come up to the requirements of the Canon. She afterwards wished to give notice for the marriage to take place at the Registry Office, and said that she would bring her sister who had married NAPPER with her in the morning when she came to give the notice. The two defendants accordingly came the next morning. Witness repeated the conversation of the previous day with regard to the NAPPER-BARNES marriage to the defendant ROWLAND, who said that she was the woman who married NAPPER. Other conversation followed, and witness felt convinced that ROWLAND was the woman who married NAPPER. The notice was accepted, and the marriage took place on the following Sunday morning. Witness caused a letter to be sent to McHUGH requesting the attendance of ROWLAND, but she did not appear. Witness asked McHUGH if he had received the letter, and he replied that he had left the barracks early and had not received it, and witness said that he should like the defendant ROWLAND present at the wedding. She was sent for, and came, and the marriage service proceeded. Witness received a communication from the Registrar-General, and subsequently made certain enquiries. He saw the defendant NAPPER at a house in Hammet Street, and she adhered to her statement that she had not been married to NAPPER. Witness asked her to go and see NAPPER, and she agreed to do so, and said she would meet him at his office in the afternoon. She came at three o'clock, but said that McHUGH did not think it necessary that she should see NAPPER. Witness told her that it would be to her advantage to go, and that he should like the matter settled. She then agreed to go, and they went, accompanied by the deputy-registrar, Mr H B ALLEN. When they got there witness went for NAPPER and brought him to the carriage. On seeing the woman he said that he did not know her. They returned to Taunton, and a few days afterwards he saw Canon MITCHELL, the priest at the Roman Catholic church. Witness saw the defendant NAPPER, and told her that Canon MITCHELL was not satisfied on the point as to whether or not she was the woman that married NAPPER. Witness also told her that he had made some enquiries, and had seen her aunt, who told witness that she did marry NAPPER. Witness said that he told the woman that he had been deceived, and said that her sister witnessed the marriage. He pointed out that the sister had signed herself as Lucy Jane, which was a false name. He subsequently laid an information and the defendants were arrested.
Emma JAMES, living in Viney Street, Taunton, deposed that the defendants were her nieces. She recognised the defendant now called NAPPER as NOWELL. She remembered a marriage between the defendant and a man named NAPPER, at Holy Trinity Church, 16 years ago. She was not present at the wedding, but attended the subsequent festivities. She believed they never lived together as man and wife, and she had not seen the man since. After the wedding Lucy Jane lived with her mother, and after NOWELL's death lived as a single woman. She heard of a reason why the defendant when married to NAPPER did not live with him.
Maria NAPPER, mother of John NAPPER, stated that she remembered her son's marrying a person named Lucy Jane BARNES at Trinity Church. She was not at the wedding. They lived in the town first. Witness would not know the woman. Afterwards they came to live at Ruishton, and her son was still living there. Cross-examined by Mr TAYLOR witness said her son was married.
P S HAYES proved to arresting the defendants under a warrant. He arrested NAPPER in a house in Silver Street. When cautioned she said - “This is hard that I should have to suffer for what I did in my young days. If I had done what Canon MITCHELL wanted me to do, go into the confession room and confess for three house, he said he would marry us, but I refused to do so.” Witness arrested the other defendant about six o'clock the same evening.
Mr CLARKE said that was his case, but if defendants were committed for trial he(?) might find it necessary to call further evidence.
Mr TAYLOR then addressed the Bench for the defence. He submitted that the case had failed, for no evidence had been tendered as the law required to prove the first marriage. Such evidence was necessary. A certificate had been put in, but a certificate was not of itself sufficient. Evidence of the marriage must be given by someone who was present at the wedding. That had been held scores of times. The law (6 and 7 William IV) required that the evidence given should be “coupled with evidence of the identity of the parties by persons present at the wedding.”
Mr CLARKE: That refers to a marriage before the Registrar.
Mr TAYLOR: I submit till you can prove the first wedding by persons present at the first wedding the case falls through. There was no legal evidence before them to show the marriage with NAPPER.
Mr CLARKE: It is a well-known law the evidence required in cases of this sort is a certificate or a certified copy of a certificate. An entry in a register is sufficient, if you are satisfied of the identity of the party. In this case I think there can be no doubt about it.
Mr TAYLOR: There is no scrap of evidence to show that these people were married at all. They were simply seen in the house later in the day.
Mr. PINCHARD (magistrates' clerk): That which Mr TAYLOR is referring to is in a marriage before a registrar.
Mr TAYLOR: I submit there is no presumptive evidence of any marriage at all having taken place. It has to be shown they went to Holy Trinity church that morning, and were married. Since that marriage – if it took place – the two parties have not lived together.
Mr PINCHARD: Another witness says they lived together for some time.
Mr TAYLOR: It is also laid down that the law concerning bigamy does not apply if the persons had not heard of each other, or had not lived together for seven years. There was evidence that they had been apart for seventeen years.
Mr PINCHARD: But you have it the sister said the man was living at Ruishton.
Mr TAYLOR: It is incumbent on the prosecutor to show that she was aware of his existence. The two parties had said they did not know each other.
Defendants were then committed for trial at the next Assizes. They reserved their defence, and were allowed bail, each in one surety of £20.