Mexborough and Swinton Times August 1, 1908

A Denaby Main Romance.
Doncaster Bench Reversed Previous Decision.
Cleethorpes and Douglas Experiences.
Cleethorpes Pierrot’s Evidence.
Lodging Housekeeper Statement

The adjourned hearing of the renewed application by Emily Alpine, single woman, of 82, Tickhill Street, Denaby Main, for an affiliation order to be made against Ernest Robinson, builder and contractor, Denaby Main, came on at Doncaster West Riding Police Court on Wednesday, the magistrates present being Mr W.W.Ward Aldham (in the chair), Mr E Walker Jackson, Mr W Turner, JC Coleman and WJ Huntriss.

This rather unusual case was first before the Court on. July 4th. when the Bench dismissed the summons. On. July 18th another application was made for an order. On this occasion. the applicant was represented by Mr. Muir Wilson, instead of Mr. Allen., who conducted the case ,at the first hearing. The case was not gone fully into at that time, owing to the absence, through illness, of an important witness. There was a large attendance of spectators most of whom came from Denaby when the adjourned hearing was taken on Wednesday last. As we have mentioned, Mr. Muir Wilson represented the applicant, and Mr. W. AL. Gichard appeared for the defence. During the hearing the advocates had many altercations, and the Chajrman was frequently appealed  to.

Mr. Wilson said at the outset that he desired that the complainant should be out of Court when he called his “Pierrot” witness,  as he did not- want her to hear his evidence. He had arranged this with Mr. Gichard. inc “Pierrot had to leave Doncaster by the 11-40 train:

Mr Gichard said he also designed that neither complainant, nor any of her witnesses, to be able to communicate with the “pierott\” after he had given his evidence.

Inspector Fairburn said he would arrange this.

Mr. Wilson then recapitulated the evidence given by the complainant at the last hearing. He said he believed that this girl was, apart from this, of good character. He remarked he was n that he hoped drawing too much on his imagination if he said that it was more or less probable that a     man whose wife had died, and ‘who was therefore in sorrow, might wish to turn to another woman to find sympathy in a moment of distress. He then proceeded to call his “pierrot witness.”

Frank Clark said he resided at Bourneville. Birmingham, and was at present the principal baritone in Mr. J. W. Turner’s pierrot company. That everting he would be singing in the opera, “The Bohemian Girl,” in Mr. John William’s opera company. He was a married man, living happily with his wife and children There was not the slightest ground for suggesting that he had misconducted himself with this girl. Their Quinton was not in the least of the nature of lovemaking or courtship. He first met the girl at Bradford. He  saw her again when she was in Cleethorpes. One evening he was in a restaurant with the girl and a man called “Peter Pan.” They refreshments and when the girl left Cleethorpes they both were at the station. There was not the slightest impropriety between witness and the girl In word or manner.

Cross examined: He was introduced to the girl at Bradford three or four years ago by Mr Elliott, son of a minister, who gave the name of the girl as Miss Alpine. Witness did not know the girl at the time. He supposed Elliott must have known her. They stood talking for four or five minutes. He could not tell what they talked about. She did not walk on with them. The girl wrote to him tell him that Robinson was defaming his character. He came there to claim itself is a married man. If he had wronged the girl he would have omitted it when standing on his oath in the witness box.

Emily Alpine was then sworn. She said that there a little illegitimate child was born on May 17, 1908. She spoke to going to defendant’s house at the time of his wife’s illness and death. After his wife’s death defendant went to Sutton in Ashfield for a fortnight. On August 14 misconduct took place between defendant and herself, and this was repeated on August 16 and 18^th.

Defendant left for Douglas, and kissed her before he went. He had left behind three children, boys aged 12 and six and a girl of eight. These were left in her charge. He had arranged to send the children to Cleethorpes, and witness and the children went to Mrs Murrell’s at Cleethorpes on the same day. Whilst the Cleethorpes witness wrote to defendant at his address in the Isle of Man. She had received a postcard from him, in which he dressed as “dear Emily.” This was dated August 19^th. She wrote to him on August 21^st.

Mr Wilson read this letter, in which the girl said she was “enjoying herself up to the mark, I would do if there was a boy about.” She is quoted a song, “There’s a man wanted there,” which she had heard sung at Cleethorpes. The letter added, “The heroes are very good here. I have some champion bits to tell you when I get come home… The children eat like elephants.” Mr Wilson then read letters from defendant to applicant, in which the letter was addressed as “Dear Emmie,” and defendant signed himself, Ernest.” In one letter she was addressed as “Dear Kiddie.”

Witness continuing, said she went on Monday, August 19 to Mrs Murrell’s house, at 66, Harrington Street new Cleethorpes. On Wednesday afternoon she went to a peer or entertainment as a spectator. Mr Clarke, the last witness, raises had to during the afternoon, and later she had a conversation with him. She then remembered seeing him before. In the evening she went to the pierrot show again with Beatrice Robinson. After the show Clark spoke to her on the pier, and they stayed there about quarter of an hour.

They then went to a restaurant and had some light refreshments, which Clark paid for. Clark  had with him with a friend, to whom witness was introduced. Mr Clarke and his friend took her to the car by which she went home. She was not alone with either man that night. The next day she was at Grimsby. She returned home on Saturday, the 24^th with the children. As they were entering Cleethorpes station they saw Clark and his friend. It was quite an accidental meeting. She had never seen Clark since until she was entering Court that morning. She had never misconducted herself with Clark or with any other man but defendant. Defendant arrived back from Douglas on August 29, and familiarity took place the same night. Defendant bought her a belt at Mexborough, and brought an approach from Douglas. She knew a person called Harry Rose who lived in Denaby. Defender took her out to supper at Rose’s house. The next impropriety was on Wednesday night September 18. On September 30 she told defendant of a condition. He said he was sorry that it had happened so soon after his wife’s death, but that he would marry her. He gave her some gin.

On October 6 defendant went out in the evening. When he returned he used bad language, and from that time forward his conduct of her changed. October 9 she found a letter written to defendant by girl at Cambridge, who signed her name as “Preston.” October 6 she had been at Denaby, but witness did not see her. Defendant did not speak to her about this letter. October 9 he told her she would have to look out for another place. She reminded him of her condition. In October 11 she told him her mother wish to see him. He said he should not go. On the 12^th he threw 10 shillings on the living room table. Her wages were five shillings per week and food. He told her to clear out. She said she should not go, as where she had been wronged she should stay and be righted. Defendant had a rifle in his hand and he raised it to his shoulder, saying “You are asking me to do something at you with this.” On the 13^th defendant’s mother came and locked witness in the house. After is a mother and father an interview with defendant, who was accompanied by his brother Luther. Witness was not in the room during the first part of the conversation. Her mother called her, and she went into the room. Her mother told her that defendant had denied everything, and called her (witness) a liar. Defendant said, “Well, if I’ve done this she has deluded me into it.” She asked if he denied kissing her, and he said “No, I do not.” That night defendant again told to clear out but she refused to go. He said he would get a policeman’s turn her out. He did actually fetch a policeman, and the latter ordered her out. He told she had the remedy in our own hands, but that she had better go out quietly, and he should put her out.

She went out then, and with the exception of one occasion, when she went to fetch some clothes, she had not been in his house since.

She issued a summons on June 16 this year. She remembered Robinson paid for her to go to a “social” at Denaby on October 1, 1907. They both men, but they went separately, as defendant said there were a lot of tales about. Applicant was examined for an hour and 20 minutes.

After the adjournment Mr Gichard commenced his cross examination. She was certain of the accuracy of the dates which she had given. She gave one wrong date to Mr Allen’s clerk. It was a mistake of a day, and she knew she had made it as soon as the clerk left. She gave him August 15^th of the second occasion on which defendant took advantage of her. After this another point of difference between her evidence on the first occasion and on the present she must’ve forgotten.

When his wife died defendant “pretended” to be sorry. She knew he only pretended from what he told her afterwards. On the Wednesday before she left she knew he was a “fraud.” In July he said he would like her not to go out with any other men. She had been courting, but had given up the man, whose name was Fred Hacking, before defendant asked her. Asked why she said previously that she gave up Hacking because defendant asked her, witness may no reply. She admitted that she “made up her mind to be Mrs Robinson if she could”. She “had designs upon him,” if Mr Gichard liked to put in in that way. Previous to the day when he asked her not to go with other men defendant “paid her 1001 attentions which a girl could not explain.” Asked to give one specimen of these attentions, witness did not reply. She said she did not call defendant Ernest until after August 14. He called her “Emily” and “Emmy” from the time she first went there. She need not object to these terms, or regard them as familiar. Defendant first promised to marry her in August 14. He made a definite promise on September 30.

Defendant had “half a dozen girls.” She did not want to “trap” defendant. After she looked on him as her promised husband she wrote to him as “Dear Mr Robinson,” because some of his friends might see the letter. The letter in which she spoke about the song, “there is a man wanted there,” was written in girlish fun. In one never letter she called him Ernest, and put “with love” in it as well. She wrote in this way because he had addressed her as “Dear kiddie.” She first met Mr Clarke, the period.at Bradford. Miss Ellie to introduce her to Clark was the son of the minister of the church she attended at Bradford. She wrote to Clark, asking to appear as a witness on her behalf. Defendant never said “I ought to have made you go as soon as I came back from Douglas.” He did not tell and on his return from Douglas that she must go away at once. The examination lasted for an hour and a half.

Mrs Murrell said Emily Alpine and defendant’s children lodged with her at New Cleethorpes. The girl behaved herself as a respectable young person and there was nothing to indicate that men were running after.

Cross-examined: It was not a duty to keep her eye upon people who lodged with her. She should consider Emily Alpine as a quiet girl and not at all forward.

Mrs Elizabeth Alpine, mother of the applicants but to go with her husband to defendant’s house. There they saw defendant and his brother Luther. She told defendant of her daughter’s condition, and associated him with it. He denied everything, said Emily had been telling lies. Witness fetched her daughter into the room, but defendant again denied that he was responsible for the condition. Afterwards he said the girl had “deluded him by into it by lacing and lacing his boots and putting on his collar and tie. Witness told defendant she should not take her daughter home until he would make some manly arrangement. Luther Robinson, in defendant’s presence, said that the pierrots were a bad lot, and the applicant had been flirting with them.

Cross-examined: Defendant admitted kissing her daughter. She did not tell the magistrates this last time because she was flustered and thought she was only allowed to speak when she was spoken to.

George M Alpine, father of applicant, also gave evidence at the conversation defendant’s house. Defendant said that “if he had done it she had deluded him into it.” He admitted kissing her. He did not give this evidence last time because he was told “it was not required.”

Harry Rose said he lived at Ravenfield St, Denaby stop he knew defendant well. In August 31 defendant told me was going to take Emily Alpine to Doncaster. As defendant’s wife had only been dead a short time to set witness thinking. As defendant miss the Doncaster trainer Ian applicant went to Mexborough with witness and his wife. Robinson gave Miss Alpine 10 shillings to buy a belt. Witness saw the belt bought. It cost 7/6. In September 1 defendant and the girl had supper at his house. On the morning of that day defendant and he cycled to Sprotbrough. Defendant said that as long as a girl behaved herself there was always a home for her with him. Of September 9 defendant and the girl again came to supper with witness. On September 4 defendant was the worse for drink, and witness took him home. Witness was quite sober. He saw defendant with his arm round the girl, kissing her. As witness was leaving the house he heard defendant walk upstairs. He heard the girl call out, “Wait a moment; I’m coming!” He went round the back, look through a window and saw defendant ready for bed. The girl entered the room and pulled down the blind. Then the light went out and witness went away.

Cross-examined: He had been at defendant’s house once or twice when defendant was not there. He was aware of suggestions that had been made as to the reasons which prompted him to assist the girl in her case. Defendant had never found him on the couch with the girl. He was a man of an “inquisitive nature,” as he said at the last hearing; but he did not pry into a friend’s affairs unless his actions were “fishy.” Everybody was a “bit fishy” at times. He was proud of what he had done.

Eliza Horsfall, Tickhill Street, Denaby, said she knew defendant and applicant well. She said that on August 30 the party went to Askern. Defendant was among those present. Witness saw defendant in company with a friend of hers. Defendant stayed behind to speak to witness. He told her he was old enough to please himself, and he should do as he liked about Emily Alpine. On a later date she saw defendant and Emily Alpine come out of the house “like man and wife.” They appear to be very happy together.

Cross-examined: She had been “running around” getting subscription for support in the girl’s case.

Re-examined: she had collected subscriptions in order that justice might be obtained. She got 250 subscribers to pay Mr Wilson’s fee. (Mr Wilson produced a large document bearing the names of the subscribers.”

James Glishall spoke to seeing defendant, and that girl leave Rose’s house and go home together between 11 and 12 one night.

Annie Wall said that in August 31 defendant, Miss Alpine herself, and two others were playing cricket. After they went into Robinson’s house and she saw defendant kiss applicant. They spoke about the pierrots, and defendant said he was jealous and had good reason to be.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr Gichard made a somewhat lengthy, but eloquent speech on behalf of his client. He spoke of the feeling which had been rows in the neighbourhood in this case, of subscription which they had heard of been raised to defray the expenses in connection with the girls claim.

He pointed out what he consider were unsatisfactory elements in the evidence which had been given that day. He, like Mr Wilson, had had a long experience of these cases, but never had he known a case in which the same amount of attention was given to details. Witnesses have been called to corroborate each other as to details. The defendant, however, was in the position of standing alone. It was easy for a charge of this kind to be made against the man, and it was necessarily difficult to refute it on its part by the evidence of any other person. They had the girl’s own admission that she had designs upon this man. If he were the father of a child it would have been better for him to have submitted to an order in the first place, and save all this trouble and expense.

It was 5 o’clock when defendant entered the box, and in answer to Mr Gichard emphatically denied the charge against him.

Then Mr Wilson cross-examined: Defendant said he did not think it wise to take his children with him to Douglas, because he was going with friends. He trusted this girl, when he sent to Cleethorpes with his children. He could not explain why he kept the letter which he received from the girl, and which Mr Gichard had suggested was a filthy one. He did not keep it because he enjoyed reading it. It was a Providence that he did not destroy the letter. He discovered it in October last year locked up among some papers. It was not true that he kept the letter to use as a rod on the girl’s back. He did not like it when he got it.

He had never kissed this girl. The witness, Annie Wall was lying. He would not like to say whether Rose had been in his house with the applicant under suspicious circumstances. He would not trust Rose. He did not suspect either Rose or Clark of being guilty in this matter. He went to see Mrs Murrell at Cleethorpes, but she would not listen to him. Witness’s brother, Luther, was not going to be called as a witness, although he was in attendance at the Court that day. It was a base lie that witness said the girl “deluded him into it.” He bought the girl brought from Douglas, but this “was not enough,” so he bought her a belt. He did not think it familiar for him to take a servant out to supper. It was false that witness was worse for drink, as described by Rose. He had never heard of the “Navvy Missioner” being at Conisbrough, or of the girl being a soloist and a member of the choir at Denaby.

Witness was by trader building contractor, in business with his brother Luther. It was about a fortnight before he turned her out that the girl brought this false charge against him. He thought she did it because she thought he “had a bit of money.” It might have been because she thought she “stood a better chance” on account of the fact of her having been his housekeeper.

He suggested that applicant was a liar from beginning to finish. The girl’s parents, and the witnesses Horsfall and Rose, were all lying. The whole of the case was trumped up from beginning to end.

At 5:35 PM the bench retired, and were absent just half an hour.

On their return the chairman said they had come to the conclusion that the additional evidence constituted sufficient corroboration and that they would make an order for the complainant.

The verdict was received with applause from the crowd of spectators, which was quickly suppressed.