Persistent Cruelty – Sordid Details – Scathing Cross-Examination.

June 1910

Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 11 June 1910

Persistent Cruelty at Conisborough

Sordid Details

Scathing Cross-Examination.

A particularly sordid case of cruelty at Conisboro’ was told to the Doncaster magistrates on Saturday.

The parties concerned were Kathleen Kelly and John Thos. Kelly, a young married couple of respectable appearance.

Mr. Frank Allen, of Doncaster, the complainant (Mrs. Kelly) and was certainly not sparing in his denunciations regarding defendant’s callous conduct, the solicitors language being more forcible than polite.

Mr. John  Baddiley was for the defence, sand had  rather warm time of it. While the case lasted excitement was intense and the air was somewhat blue.

Defendant, who is a flint hand at Messrs. Kilner Bros. Glassworks, at New Conisboro’, was charged with persistent cruelty, and complainant applied for a separation order.

The parties were married on the September last, and Mr. Allen said the trouble started almost immediately after the marriage, as defendant took his wife to live with his mother at Burcroft, which, according to Mr. Allen’s views, was a most undesirable estate of affairs, and one which would never suceed. Defendant told his wife that he intended to support his mother. Complainant wanted to live with her grandmother, and defendant threatened her repeatedly. ln the end she went there, and defendant no objection. She gave birth to a child at that place on November 19th, and things went us as usual until Boxing Day, when complainant announced her intention of going to a dance and asked her husband to accompany her, but he refused. Instead he met out on business (he being a tripe dealer at that time).

Having a lot of tripe left over, defendant told his wife to get him his dinner ready for him upon his return, and that he must have some tripe and onions. He cams in late and complainant had not prepared the timer, owing to the fact that there was a lot of other stuff in the home that required eating. This was whilst they were at the complainant’s grandmother’s house.

On seeing that the stuff he wanted had not been prepared, and on being told that there was boiled ham, etc., he asked complainant “What the —- —- do you take me for” at the same time striking her on the mouth and cutting her lip open. She became unconscious and on coming round complainant found herself upstairs, where defendant had carried her. Defendant expressed seing sorry for what had occurred, and things imposed as far as the middle of March this year, when defendant again assaulted his wife.

Defend, told his wife that if she was the “boss” on Boxing Day she was not going to be “boss” on this occasion and be went upstairs, got all his wife’s things together, and threw them downstairs.

He went to hie mother’s home, and complainant slept in the home alone that night. He came in again next morning for breakfast, and complainant left her breakfast to prepare his. Defendant told his wife he was going to clear the house on the 24th of May and they went to seek another house and took one.

Complainant and a woman cousin of hers, were left to do all the removing to Burton, on 26 May, and whilst they were getting a wringing machine down the steps slipped and fell.

Defendant then came up got hold of complainant by the throat, and struck her in the eye, which was blackened. She ran into the house, and defendant followed her and struck her again. The next morning they had removed everything but a piano and a bedstead and defendant came to her whilst he was at the new house for the key. They all went back the other house, where there was a difference about the linoleum and some chairs come with defendant wanted a mother to. The result was that defendant again assaulted his client, striking her on the body and head.

Complainant corroborated the solicitor’s story, and said she told defendant he would summon him for his cruelty. She was afraid to live with him. Defendant was a flint hand at Kilner’s and earned about £2.10 shillings a week.

Cross-examined by Mr Baddeley, complainant said she did not leave her husband for 11 weeks without telling her husband he did not say she was going to a dance, and would not cook the tripe and onions. He did not throw a cup at him to pick one up in her madness and threw it on the board. She had never told anyone she wanted to aggravate him. She could not live with him as her life was in danger. She did not push the ring down. She had been living with her grandmother at Castle Grove Terrace, Conisbrough, and was living at Carhouse Road, Hyde Park, Doncaster at present.

Mrs. Cochrane, cousin of complaisant, said she was helping to remove the goods when the machine slipped. Defendant came up to his wife and struck her and said he would be the death of her if she stayed with him.

By Mr. Baddiley: complainant did not say anything to defendant, neither did she aggravate him. He had no justification in striking her.

Mrs Dan, five Burcroft, said he was engaged in cleaning the new house, and corroborated some and Mr Allen’s statement, and in reply to said she would not have liked to see loans which complainant everything. He had had to husband, and had never received treatment like that. She admitted saying that she would not care to say to Jack what complainant said to the defendant.

By Mr Baddeley: Complainant did not tell her husband to take himself on.

Mr Baddeley said he was a most unfortunate and regrettable case. Complainant had been aggravated her husband for some time in order that she could get him into paying to a maintenance order

defendant said he could earn 2 pounds a week when he was working, but he had just had seven weeks. He produced a list from the works, showed his earning this year to have been £31 9 9d.

He did not strike his wife before Boxing Day, and he got all of her by the shoulder in September – not my throat. At that time he was a greengrocer and tripe dealer. He would not go to the dance was there on Boxing Day as he did not believe in it.

In reply to Mr Allen, defendant said complainant through a cup team, and then he struck her in the mouth. He asked her to be careful when she was removing the wringing machine, but she shoved it down the steps. He did not say “you – – – – shut up; and the right man for you today. He just slapped her face. Complainant did not faint. He threw the box down the stairs, and the grandmother intervened. He was put out because he did not have what he wanted very dinner. He helped his wife upstairs to the incident of the cup, after her grandmother had washed her mouth. It was stated that the grandmother was 62 years of age.

Mr Allen asked defendant whether he thought he was a fit person to have charge of a wife, and defendant replied that he was as fit as he (Mr Allen) was. Complainant said the child had died, in 10 days, and she was expecting another in four months.

Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the case (£1 9s 6d) and 12/6 a week to his wife would grant of the desired order.

There would also be another order for maintenance when the child was born.