BIGAMY, in law, is defined in the English statute now in force (Offences against the Person Act 1861, s. 57), is the offence committed by a person who "being married shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere." It is a felony and is punishable by penal servitude not exceeding seven years or by imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than two years. By the same act of parliament the offence may be dealt with in any county or place where the defendant shall be apprehended or be in custody. The following clause embodies the necessary excep tions to the very general language used in the definition of the offence: "Provided that nothing in this section contained shall extend to any second marriage contracted elsewhere than in England and Ireland by any other than a British subject, or to any person marrying a second time whose husband or wife shall have been continuously absent from such person for the space of seven years then last past, and shall not have been known by such person to be living within that time, or shall extend to any person who at the time of such second marriage shall have been divorced from the bond of the first marriage, or to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by any court of competent jurisdiction." By the Criminal Justice Ad ministration Act 1914 the wife or husband of a person charged with bigamy is a competent but not a compellable witness (R. v. Leach, 22 Cox C.C. 721).
A valid marriage must be proved in the first instance in order to support a charge of bigamy. A voidable marriage, such as one voidable for impotence, will be sufficient, but a marriage which is absolutely void will not. For example, if a woman marry B during the lifetime of her husband A, and after A's death marry C during the lifetime of B, her marriage with C is not bigamous, because her marriage with B was a nullity. In regard to the second marriage (which constitutes the offence) the English courts have held that it is immaterial whether, but for the bigamy, it would have been a valid marriage or not. An uncle, for ex ample, cannot marry his niece; but if being already married he goes through the ceremony of marriage with her he is guilty of bigamy. In an Irish case, however, it has been held that to con stitute the offence the second marriage must be one which, but for the existence of the former marriage, would have been valid, but this was disapproved by the Court for Crown cases reserved in R. v. Allen, L.R. 1 C.C.R. 367. It is a good defence to a charge of bigamy that the accused after proper inquiries in good faith and on reasonable grounds believed the first spouse was dead, even although seven years have not elapsed (R. v. Tolson, 16 Cox C.C. 629). Further, if a person charged with bigamy in England can prove that he has been legally divorced by the law of the country where the divorced parties were domiciled at the time (even though the ground on which the divorce was granted was not one that would justify a divorce in England) it will be good defence to the charge. But a bona fide belief on reasonable grounds that a divorce is valid affords no defence (R. v. Wheat & Stocks, 26 Cox C.C. 717). Criminal jurisdiction is always re garded as purely territorial, but bigamy (with homicide and trea son) is an exception. A British subject committing bigamy in any country may be tried in the United Kingdom (Russell's case, 1901, 20 Cox C.C. 51, where the words "or elsewhere" were held to mean "in any other part of the world") . American law as regards bigamy is similar to English law. (W. DE B. H.)