Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Yarmouth Independent, North Norfolk and Eastern Counties' Herald Saturday 04 Apr 1908
Page 3 Column 1 and 2
POLICE NEWS.
FRIDAY.
Before the Mayor (Alderman F. ARNOLD), W. BARNARD, T. J. SAUL, and G. BAKER, Esqs.
UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE.
SEPARATED AFTER 33 YEARS.
Owing to the alleged cruelty of her husband, Robert CUBITT, stevedore, of Alderson Road, Mrs. CUBITT applied for a separation, under the Married Woman's Act, on the grounds of desertion
Mr. A. F. CLOWES appeared for complainant, and Mr. P. WILTSHIRE was for defendant.
Opening the case for complainant, Mr. CLOWES said this application was made under the Married Woman's Act. The parties had been married 33 years and there were fifteen children, of whom six were living. For some time past defendant had illtreated his wife, and the attention of the Inspector of Cruelty to Children (Inspector RICHINGS) had been called to the case. Defendant had used some filthy language and threatened his wife. He said he was tired of his life and that he “would do for her.”
Complainant bore out her solicitor's statement and said that for a considerable time she had not lived a happy life. On the night after Christmas defendant cut her head with a glass pepper box, and she had to go to the Hospital, where three stitches were put in. It was quite true that on Friday last he declared that he was tired of his life and that he would “do for her.” When the complaint was made by the Inspector defendant said that the latter must come and see him if he wanted him. Also on Friday night she went to a saleroom and there defendant made a gross accusation against her which was untrue. A few days before this he had chased her upstairs with a knife. Time after time she had been compelled to go into the Workhouse in consequence of her husband's illtreatment. She had to shelter there in January, 1905, and defendant becoming liable for her maintenance to the Guardians he had to pay £2 4s. 6d. Mr. CLOWES put in receipts showing that this was the case. Whilst the wife was away the daughter kept the house Last Friday night defendant turned them all out, locked the door, and said: “Good-bye.” Defendant had worked for Mr. SALMON and also Mr. FENNER, and was able to earn £3 to £5 per week. What she complained of was her husband's illtreatment and she had not been back to her husband because she was afraid to live with him.
The Deputy-Clerk (Mr. C. B. DIVER) – The summons is taken out on the ground of desertion. Have you been back to him since?
Complainant – No, I have not attempted to go back.
Mr. CLOWES – I shall apply to have the summons amended, therefore, on the ground of cruelty as well.
Mr. WILTSHIRE – You must have one or the other.
Mr. WILTSHIRE proceeded to-cross-examine, and asked “Have you frequently left your husband,” and the answer was in the negative.
You brought him here once before, didn't you?
Yes, that was for assault, but the summons was dismissed as my husband said he did not hit me, but he did. That was about two years ago.
Well, now, since that time have you frequently left him to go about with your married daughter?
No, I have stopped with her because he turned us out.
Why did you go into the workhouse?
Because of his conduct towards me.
And when you came back he refused to have you?
No.
You went into the Workhouse in 1904, and after you had been away about twelve months you went back to him?
Yes.
And you were so afraid of him that you went back?
Yes, during the summer time my husband was ill.
And you tried to get him into the Workhouse in order that you might get more visitors?
No.
What was the matter with your husband?
It was on account of his heart.
Have you removed certain goods from the house?
No.
How old is your husband?
I cannot say exactly; somewhere about 60.
And he has been in steady employment for the last thirty years?
Yes, he works as hard as anyone in the fishing season, an I have done my best for him. He has given me 10s 6d. a weeks to keep house on.
Rose CUBITT, complainant's daughter, said she could bear testimony to the way her mother had been ill-treated. As a matter of fact she had been so afraid that she had locked herself in her bedroom to escape defendant's violence. It was owing to his cruelty that she had been compelled to go into the Workhouse. When they were having meals together he swore dreadfully. About three weeks ago on Sunday her mother came running upstairs to her bedroom, and father was behind with a knife in his hand. Witness let her into the bedroom and then closed the door. For safety's sake complainant had been living with witness. Owing to her father's conduct he had received notice to quit the house. She had seen her father attempt to strike her mother on several occasions.
Defendant gave evidence on his own behalf, and said he had been engaged as a lumberer practically for the past 35 years. His wife went into the Workhouse because she had been away and he would not have her back. After being away twelve months she rejoined him, and sixteen months ago preferred a charge of assault against him, but it was withdrawn. Subsequently the relieving officer came round to his house and wanted to get him into the Workhouse, saying he would have plenty of people to wait on him there. He would not go, however. He declared he had not struck his wife for fifteen years. Further, he denied that he had threatened her, and that her days were numbered. He wanted her to live a little longer. It was not true that he had chased her with a knife, and as for turning the family out, he did not do so, because he had no key with which to lock the door. His daughter was telling an untruth, when she said he had chased his wife with a knife. His wife had left him about fifteen times in five years, but his house was always open to her.
For the defence Mr. WILTSHIRE submitted that an old man of sixty, like defendant, could not be so violent that it was not safe for complainant to live with him. What occurred was a family squabble more than anything else. The woman preferred to go about with her married daughter, and that was the cause of all the trouble. He contended that no case of desertion had been made out, and the home was perfectly open for her to go back if she wished.
In reply to the Deputy Clerk, complainant said that only one child, aged nine years, was dependent on her.
The Chairman said the Bench had no doubt whatever about the nature of the case, and they granted a separation order, with an allowance of 10s. per week, complainant to have the custody of the child. Defendant would also have to pay the costs.
SATURDAY.
<section not transcribed>
<NOTES: Robert CUBITT son of George CUBITT and Jane LARN, married Susan P. THOMPSON
Rosa CUBITT daughter of Robert CUBITT and Susan P. THOMPSON, married Frederick LITTLEWOOD>