Collier sent to Prison for Neglect of Family.

February 1881

Mexborough and Swinton Times, February 11.

Collier sent to Prison for Neglect of Family.

Samuel Neal, Collier of Collycroft, Warwickshire (formerly of Denaby), was charged with neglect of family.

The relieving officer, stated that on the night of October, Mary, the wife of defendant, applied for relief herself and her five children, stating that her husband had left in search of work.

On the 23rd of the same month he brought the case before the Guardians and the woman was ordered to the Workhouse. He took the woman the order on the following Tuesday, but she would not then make use of it.

However, on the second December she and her children went to him, saying that she was still in a state of destitution, that she had been requested by the Manager of the Denaby pits to leave her house.

Lord Auckland: These men have been on strike. I suppose it was at the time when the men were out of work that the defendant went away in search of employment?

The officer said the men were in full work at the time, and added that the sum claimed from the defendant was £10 9s 0d, the cost of the maintenance of his wife and family for nine weeks and two days.

The defendant said at the time he left Denaby. There was a disease in the horses. 22 of them had to be destroyed in one week. This caused himself and others to be out of work for some time, and as there was much gas in the pit, he preferred to try and get employed in Warwickshire, of which county he and his wife were natives.

He had to tramp the whole of the way, getting work four days as he went along. Although he was not fully employed he sent his wife what he could during the time he was away.

He finally got employment at the Nunnery Colliery, Warwickshire, and when he was fetched by the police he was getting a home furnished for his wife and family. He knew his wife had to go to the Workhouse, but this, he could not help. This was the first time he had been before a bench of magistrates in his life.

Lord Auckland, said the Relieving Officer stated that the defendant was been fully employed at the time he went away from his wife, therefore they must disbelieve his (the defendants) statement. He also.

They could not expect him to pay the sum claimed, and the only alternative would be to send him to jail for one month.












Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.