THE MARRIAGE ACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2615, 24 September 1909, Page 5

THE MARRIAGE ACT.

ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION. [Per Press Association.! WELLINGTON, Sept. 23. A young couple, Ernest Edward Moves and Eva Maud Lyster, were each charged in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., with wilfully making a false declaration under the Marriage Act. 1908. Alary Lyster, wife of David Lyster. residing at Mein Street, and mother of the female defendant, stated that her daughter was born on the 30th November, 1891. Witness had known Ernest Moves for the past twelve months. He had been boarding with witness for about six months at the Lower Hutt, where he was employed at the Bellevue Gardens. It was then he became acquainted with her daughter, Eva. He asked witness’ consent to his engagement with the latter, witness replying that she did not wish to mar their happiness, but that she_ considered Eva was rather young. Aoout. four months ago witness’ daughter left home te go to work, and witness forbade Moves to keep company with her until she was 21. On the Ist June he called on witness, and informed her that he had married her daughter. He warned her not to interfere, or else they would prosecute her. This was the first intimation or suggestion witness had of defendant’s marriage. Moves knew Eva’s age. David Lyster, husband of the previous witness, also gave evidence. He said that as far as he knew Moyes was a suitable husband for his daughter. Gilbert Graham Hodgkins, Registrar of Marriages, produced a declaration made by Moves that the female defendant was 22 years of ago. The latter verbally confirmed the statement. She signed the entry in the marriage register. which set out that her age was 22. To Mr. Jackson: Witness did not suspect that the female defendant was under age. , . Both defendants, who pleaded not o-uilty, were committed to the Supreme Court for trial. They reserved their defence. Each was admitted to hail. In the case of the male defendant it was fixed in one surety of £3O, and the female defendant was. allowed on bail on her, own recognisances.