Domestic Disputes

CRIME

Some Domestic Disputes

March 15th 1851 Carlisle PatriotCost of a WifeWilliam Ewart, a farmer?s son, was brought up charged with neglecting to support his wife, who had become chargeable to the parish of Bewcastle. The parties were married at Gretna Green some months ago and it was whispered that he was a statesman?s son. Mr C B Hodgson said he had been instructed by the Board to press the case against Ewart, who was able but unwilling to support his wife. The Bench ordered him to pay the 2s which had advanced by the Union, and costs ? in all £1 11s, and advised him to make some settlement with his wife.Ewart (who held a long purse in his hand): I canna; I?m only a labouring man.Bench: We would advise you not to come here again.Ewart: That?ll depend on how much she wants from me (laughter).April 16th 1867 Carlisle JournalA Heartless FatherGeorge Ferguson a miller a stout healthy looking man, was brought up in custody on a warrant charged with deserting his three children, whereby they became chargeable to the Longtown Union.Mr Gibbons of Burnfoot, vice chairman of the Board of Guardians, with Mr Beaty of Briscohill and Mr Tinning of Oakbank, appeared in court as prosecutors.Mr John Dixon sworn said ? I am relieving officer and remember of the prisoner?s children, three in number, being removed in February 1865 from Wigton parish to this parish. They have been 112 weeks in the workhouse. The order of removal was taken in 1864 but the - - - declined to accept them. An appeal was made to the Poor Law Board, when we were decided against. There was then £30 due for their maintenance &c and over £40 due now making over £70 altogether. I have made inquiries about him and have heard of him at several places, but never could succeed in getting him. He has never made the least inquiry about them or paid a farthing for their support in any way. His wife is dead. He is a widower. He has a deal of friends living here, but I have never heard of him being here during the time.Mr Lee, master of the workhouse, corroborated Mr Dixon in every respect, and added that every exertion had been made to capture him, but up to the present time he had evaded them. The children had been 112 weeks in the house and he had never inquired for them in any way. Mr Superintendent Fowler said that a constable had been sent to Newcastle for him, where he had been in custody for being drunk and disorderly. Prisoner denied this. Mr Dixon here said that he had been instructed by the authorities to press the charge to the utmost limits, as it was one of the most heartless cases of desertion that they ever had. The Rev Chairman asked prisoner if he was prepared to pay the money due. He replied he would pay £5 in a fortnight, and give a guarantee for the other then. He had been twenty three weeks out of employment with a bad thumb. The chairman told him twenty three weeks was a very short time out of 112 weeks, and he would have to go to Carlisle gaol for three calendar months with hard labour, and if he did not, at the expiration of that period, take proper charge of his children he would, on the next occasion, be more severely dealt with.April 16th 1867 Carlisle JournalWife desertion. George Beaty, weaver Longtown was also charged by the Guardians of the same Union with deserting his wife and child, and leaving them chargeable to the said parish. Mr Dixon, relieving officer, sworn, said that prisoner applied to him for an order of admission into the workhouse for himself and wife and child. He gave him an order and they were admitted, and while Mr Lee was removing the wife and child to their portion of the house, he made his escape. Some time after he absconded, a warrant was issued for his apprehension. Mr Lee corroborated Mr Dixon?s statement in every respect, and added that when he came over from removing the wife and child, he was gone. The wife and child remained in the workhouse until the 22nd of March when she went out with the child. She was herself readmitted next board day. There was £1 7s due for their maintenance.Jessie Beaty sworn said ? I am wife to George Beaty. I do not know what he left me for. I had been very ill, and he always kept saying I was bringing him to the poor house. I said I could not help it. When I left the workhouse I went to look for him. I found him at Carlisle. Asked him what he meant to do. He replied he meant to do nothing with me. He had had enough of me. He said he would keep the child; we were both free. I left the child with him. Mr Dixon here said that prisoner had sold the furniture and put the money in his pocket, and said he would keep her in the workhouse all her life, but Mr Gibbons had just instructed him to state that if he would take his wife away and not again become chargeable to them, they would forego the claim upon him and not press the charge. Prisoner however was inexorable, and refused to have her on any terms. They might do as they liked, he had had enough of her, he could not work for her, he was a cripple. The wife here said ?George, I will do all I can to help you? but the prisoner still refused to comply and Mr Graham said he appeared to treat the matter as a good joke. He would have to go to gaol for one calendar month with hard labour. He was removed saying ?It may be law, but its not God?s law. Its more than human nature can stand. He was not able to do hard labour?.NB A Jessie Beattie died in the workhouse in July 1867 aged 25June 28th 1889 Carlisle PatriotLongtown Police CourtJames Carruthers labourer, Longtown, better known as Jimmy Queer, was charged with assaulting his wife Jessie Carruthers on 28th May. The matrimonial differences of this couple have frequently engaged the attention of the Bench. Mr Cartner appeared for the defendant.Complainant stated that defendant pulled her out of bed by the neck at eleven o?clock at night, and put her out on the street nearly naked. She sought the protection of her father?s house, and was afraid to live with defendant as he threatened to kill her.Mr Cartner ? I believe you were married at Gretna Green about three o?clock on a Sunday morning? ? YesMr Cartner ? You took him away at twelve o?clock at night for the purpose of getting married? ? Yes.Mr Cartner ? Didn?t the defendant rue when he got to Gretna Green? ? NoMr Cartner ? Didn?t your father give him two black eyes before he would marry you? (Laughter) ? I couldn?t tell you.M Cartner ? At all events, it was not until your father gave him a good thrashing that he would marry you? ? I don?t know.Evidence was then given by James Beaty, complainant?s father, who described complainant?s arrival at his house, barefooted and almost naked.Mr Cartner for the defence denied the assault and contended that his client?s father in law was the real source of all the disagreement between the couple. He had been going round the town saying that defendant was, ?Jimmy Queer, but they would find he was Jimmy Queerer? (Laughter). He submitted that the case was of a trumped up nature.Defendant was bound over to keep the peace for six months and ordered to pay the costs of the case.October 2nd 1896 Carlisle PatriotDistressing Case: a Fatal ObjectionWilliam Graham Saunders, farmer, Cubby Hill, Longtown, was charged with neglecting to maintain his wife and family at Randalinton, on September 25th ? Mr Strong prosecuted, and the defendant was represented by Mr Broughton. In his opening statement, Mr Strong said the case was taken under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women?s Act) 1895, which came into force at the beginning of the year, and which gave power to the magistrates, when a husband by persistent cruelty caused his wife to live apart from him, to make an order upon him for maintenance. The tale he had to unfold to them was a very melancholy one. They, who were representing Mrs Saunders, would have liked to have spared the exposure to all parties concerned, but Mr Saunders was himself to blame. Mrs Saunders had been married to the defendant fifteen years and they had had six children. During the greater part of their married life, the defendant had been a slave to drink. He had had delirium tremens several times and had had to be watched by a man for considerable periods. The defendant?s cruelty to his wife during the whole of this time had been something heartrending, and in consequence of it, at the end of last year Mrs Saunders found herself obliged to leave him, and take refuge with her own relations. He would call evidence to prove the defendant?s persistent cruelty, and then ask the Bench to grant a maintenance order, giving the wife the custody of the children. The defendant was an able-bodied man, and there was no reason whatever why he should not provide for his children. If this Act had ever to be put into operation, this was one of the cases which ought to induce the Bench to act upon it.Mrs Saunders, who was then sworn, stated that she was the wife of the defendant, and was now living at Randalinton with her mother and brother. She had been married to defendant 15 years and they had had six children. The eldest was thirteen and the youngest was born this year. She left her husband in November of last year because she was afraid of her life. Up to that time they had lived at Frankstown. On one occasion, just prior to her leaving him, the defendant came home in a drunken state and thrashed her. He was also in the habit of thrashing the children, especially the eldest boy. On this day she ran away to the house of a neighbour, Mr Robert Graham, blacksmith, Bogburn. Her husband ran after her, and they locked the door on the inside. Defendant went away again, and witness subsequently returned home, her brother going with her. Defendant used to turn on the eldest boy and cruelly illtreat him. One night just before they left him, the defendant held the boy by the ears till the skin came off. The boy was trying to protect her. That night the boy hid from his father below the girls? bed, and the girls stayed with witness downstairs. Before that the boy always ran to get out of defendant?s way. During the latter part of their residence at Frankstown, defendant was not often sober. Defendant also threw a cup at her head. It was always when he had taken whisky. Her brother had frequently to remain at the house to protect her, and they had to get a keeper for the defendant. They had Frankstown till Candlemas last, and up to that time she went there occasionally to make butter. Her brother always went with her, as she was afraid to go alone. Defendant had given her nothing towards her maintenance since last November. He used to hide the whisky in different places, and when he was at the worst her son, John, laid with his clothes on many a night, ready to go for assistance. . .Mr Broughton said he might shorten the case by raising a point of law. The Act under which they were charged did not prescribe a time in which proceedings could be instituted. Section 8 of the Act therefore stated that all prosecutions should be made in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which enacted that proceedings must be instituted within six calendar months from the time when such complaint arose. In this case complainant left defendant in November last, and ten or eleven months had elapsed before the information was laid. He therefore contended that the Bench had no power to make an offer, and in support of his contention he quoted the case of Ellis v Ellis, decided in July last by Sir Frances Jeune, the President of the Divorce Court, and Mr Justice Barnes. It was an appeal from the decision of a bench of magistrates, a case on all fours with this, in which a maintenance order was granted to a wife on the ground of her husband?s persistent cruelty after the expiration of six months, and these eminent Judges held that the magistrates had no right to make the order.Mr Strong contended that the magistrates had power to deal with the case. The complainant had been ?Caused to live apart? from her husband within six months, and he argued that it was a continuing offence on similar lines to the case of Herd v Herd, also decided by Sir Francis Jeune. Mr Broughton said that was a case of desertion, which was a different matter. The Chairman asked if there was any reason for not bringing the case sooner. Mr Broughton said that had nothing to do with it. Mr Strong said his client had expected to come to terms with her husband without causing this publicity. The Clerk said his opinion was that the case should have been brought within six months of the time when this unfortunate woman left her husband, and that the offence was complete when she left him. The Chairman said they must be guided by the opinion of the Clerk. The Clerk suggested that the parties should endeavour to come to a mutual arrangement to live separately, and the husband to make his wife an allowance. Mr Broughton ? That is a matter for future negotiation. The Clerk ? She can go to the High Court if she likes. - Mr Strong said the complainant could get at the defendant by making her children chargeable to the Union. ? Mr Broughton: May I take it that the case is dismissed? ? The Chairman: Certainly.