Denaby Desertion Case

July 1905

Mexborough and Swinton Times July 22, 1905

A Denaby Desertion Case

Richard Finch, a new Conisborough miner, was summoned for deserting his wife, Elizabeth, who applied for an order of separation and also an order of maintenance.

Mr W Baddiley appeared on behalf of the wife, and stated that the parties were married at Sedgley on October 10, 1881, and there was one child of the union, a new man now 23 years of age. On July 4 of the present year he turned out his wife, and refused to have her back again. Since that time she had lived apart from him.

Complainant stated that she was now residing at 18 Firbeck Street, Denaby. She went on to say that she had not had a very happy married life. Defendant had both threatened and turned her out of doors scores of times.

On July 4 last he went out of the house at 9:30 am and returned at 4.20 in the afternoon; and although he had been drinking he knew quite well what he was doing. She put his dinner on the table, and went upstairs to finish making the beds. There was the pancheon of bread on the table, and before she went upstairs he said he wanted some ——- beer. She told him she thought he had had sufficient beer, and she suggested that she would put on the kettle and make him some tea. He replied “If you make me any tea I shall put both you and the ——- tea on the fire.” She then came downstairs, and he ran at her with a chair. Just at that time the sun came into the house, and afterwards mistook a not the son of the chair. Her son then struck the defendant. They struggled on the floor, and in the end defendant push both her and her son out of the house saying “There is no home here, either for you or him (referring to his son), and you can both clear away.”

That sort of thing had taken place upon many occasions. On one occasion he threw a carving knife at her, and he caught her upon her neck, the marks which were visible to the present day. She did not know what his wages were, but he had given her 20s weekly.

William Finch, the son of the parties said when he returned home on the date in question is father was in a chair and “pretending” to be asleep. He asked defendant where his mother was, when he made reply, saying “She has gone to —-and I will make a football of her.” He then struck witness and knocked him on the floor and his mother went to the door and called in a police officer. Subsequently defendant term both him and his mother out of the house. His mother had considerable difficulty in obtaining her clothes from the house, and, as a matter of fact, she was unable to do so until she was accompanied by two police officers.

Mary Ann Neath, 18 Firbeck Street, said she saw the defendant so both his wife and son out of the house

Mr G.W Andrews who appeared for the husband then addressed the Bench on his behalf. He said the disturbances that took place on July 4 was between the defendant and his son. There was a tussle that had been stated and the complainant went to the assistance of the sun and struck the defendant with the fireirons. Defendant said that he would not have his son back in the house, and seen that he was now 23 years of age, there was no law to compel him to take his son back. The man strenuously denied that he set to his wife, “There is no home for either of you.”

Defendant substantially bore out Mr Andrew statement.

Mr Baddiley: how often do you get drunk Finch?

Defendant: About once in three months. (Laughter)

Mr Baddiley: And then there is a good old row on?

Defendant: No

Mr Badley: Have you turn out before?

Defendant: Yes, once.

Mr Badley: And now long was she away?

Defendant: For three or four days.

Thomas Goodwin, five Clifton Street, was called in behalf of defendant stop he stated that he saw the woman walk out of the house and shortly afterwards the son followed her. Neither of them was thrown out. The wife was calling her husband and they were having words. He did not hear anything whatever about there being no home for either of them. Witness was not more than 5 yards away from the parties, and the saw complainant and the son leave the house.

In reply to the chairman, defendant said his wages average about 5/- or 6/- daily.

The chairman addressing defendant, said the bench consider that it was a clear case of desertion and his wife would be granted a separation. And ordered to pay 7/- weekly towards her maintenance would be made upon the defendant.