Neglecting to Maintain a Wife at Conisborough

November 1880

Mexborough and Swinton Times, November 19

Alleged neglect of a family at Conisbrough.

Thomas Gabbitas, Collier of Conisbrough, was summoned to show cause why had not contributed towards his wife´s maintenance.

Mr Verity appeared for the complainant.

It was stated that defendants wife became chargeable to the Doncaster Union of the choices September, and had remained there up to the present time – six weeks.

Along with her were also five children.

The manager of the workouts stated that the sum of £10.16 shillings was altogether claimed from the defendant, a charge of five shillings being made per head.

In answer to Mr Verity, the Manager said he did not think the youngest child – six months – will cost the Union more than two shillings per week; but five shillings was a usual chart.

Mr Verity contended that the sum of £10.16 shillings was most extortionate, and said the defendant only earned one pound per week.

The defendant having been called, said he did not turn his wife from home; she went on her own accord. He would be willing to take her back if she would behave herself, and would not get drunk.

The woman said she had been turned away from home.

It eventually transpired that the summons had been taken out under the wrong section of the Act, and the defendant was therefore liberated, he being told, however, that Didi he not maintain his wife, he will be brought before the bench again, and would then probably have to pay the present costs.

Mexborough and Swinton Times, December 17.

Neglecting to Maintain a Wife at Conisborough

Thomas Gabbitas, Collier, Conisborough, was summoned for neglect of his wife.

Mr Verity appeared for defendant.

Mr John Cockrayne, relieving officer for the Doncaster Union, said he had summoned the defendant to show cause why an order should not be made upon him to maintain his wife.

On 22 November, Clara Gabbitas, the defendants wife, and five of her children, were admitted into the Workhouse, and the sum of £10 was claimed for their support.

The defendants wife stated in evidence that since she had left the house she went back to her husband and found the doors locked. She went to the house several times, but would not be allowed to go in.

Her husband was living with a woman named Sarah Beaumont. He would not let her go back because he preferred living with a woman who had no children.

Lord Auckland, said the bench had no hesitation in making an order, but at the same time they could not help expressing their disapproval at the most unsatisfactory manner in which these Union cases were brought before them. There was no one to lay the facts before them, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that the bench could arrive at a proper statement of the case.

An order for 3s 9d per week and costs was made.

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.