Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 29 Jul 1914
Page 4 Column 6 and 7
TAUNTON.
<section not transcribed>
TAUNTON BOROUGH POLICE-COURT.
WEDNESDAY. - Before the Mayor (Councillor G. HINTON), the ex-Mayor (Alderman F. W. PENNY), Mr. W. LOCK, Mr. A. E. PERKINS, and Mr. J. LEWIS.
LICENSING.
Mr. G. H. RIDGEWAY, of the Old Angel Hotel, was granted an occasional licence to sell in the Vivary Lands on August Bank Holiday on the occasion of the Old English Fair. - Mr. W. F. WHITTINGHAM, of the London Hotel, was granted an extension on July 30th, on the occasion of a polo dance.
INDECENT LANGUAGE.
Walter OATEN, haulier, of 1, Court, High-street, did not appear in answer to a summons for having used indecent language on the 11th inst. - P.C. BOWDITCH stated that defendant was using the indecent language towards his wife. - A warrant was issued for his arrest.
Mabel THORNE, factory hand, of 10, Cheddon-road, pleaded guilty to having used indecent language on the 19th inst. - P.C. RANSOME stated the facts, and said defendant was in the bedroom with the window open, using the language towards her mother. She did not stop when he spoke to her. - Defendant expressed her sorrow, and Deputy Chief Constable BROWN said it was her first offence. - Fined 2s 6d and 5s costs.
Zakariah SHOARN, a pensioner, of Middle-street, pleaded guilty to having used indecent language on the 18th inst. - P.C. WOOLCOTT stated the facts, and said defendant, who was under the influence of drink, threatened to use a hatchet on a man named SPILLER. - Defendant alleged that his daughter had lost 13s(?) out of a box, and SPILLER was the only man in the house. He considered it very hard. - Fined 2s 6d and 5s costs.
Matilda WOOD, a widow, of St. George's-place, pleaded guilty to having used indecent language on the 16th(?) inst. - P.C. SIMS stated the facts and said that defendant expressed her sorrow when he spoke to her, and alleged that it was her neighbour's fault. - Deputy-Chief Constable BROWN stated that there were two previous convictions(?), the last being a fortnight ago. - Defendant said she had had a glass of beer, and she would not let it occur again. - She was ordered to pay the costs 5s. and the case was adjourned for three months.
A HUSBAND'S “FAVOURITE EXPRESSIONS.'
OBJECTION TO WIFE'S ASSOCIATES.
Alfred DARCH, of 1, Princess-Street, Taunton, was summoned by his wife, Mary Ann Potter DARCH, for having deserted her. She also applied for a maintenance order under the Married Woman's Act, 1895(?).
Mr. C. H. HARRIS appeared for the applicant, and defendant denied desertion.
Mr. HARRIS said that on the 2nd June defendant had to be at his work at 2 p.m., but earlier in the morning he said he would go to the garden to cut some cabbage for dinner. As he had not returned by one o'clock his wife went to a neighbour's and asked him if he was going to cut the cabbage, pointing out that there was very little time for her to cook them so that he could have his dinner and get to work. The defendant came home and said he would teach her to go spying on him and hit her against the wall. As a result her breast was black for a week. She consulted a solicitor and told him so. On the 13th defendant complained that his wife did not give him proper and sufficient food and said he had kept her long enough, and did not intend to keep her any longer. She had given him a hot dinner every day, but he was a man who made continual irrational complaints. Complainant said to her husband “If you can live better in lodgings why don't you go?” and he replied “That is what I mean to do, how much do you want out of me?” She asked what he could spare and he said “I will give you 8s per week, but will have no more to do with you.” Defendant then left and went into lodgings. On the 20th(?) he gave his wife 8s and said “That is the last money you will get out of me.” On the 24th defendant came to the house at 9 p.m and said he intended to stay that night and to finish his wife. The household consisted of complainant, defendant, and two daughters, both of whom were at work. As a result of his treatment the wife and daughters remained in the streets until five o'clock next morning. On the 27th defendant gave his wife no money and on the 28th she sent him a note saying they were in great distress and need. On the 29th(?) he brought her 3s 1½d. She received nothing further from him and on 11th(?) July she saw him outside the Victoria Inn. He told her that he did not intend to maintain her unless she complied with certain conditions. One was that she gave up a certain woman friend, who was a perfectly respectable woman, and another was that she did not leave the house except between the hours of two and four p.m. She told him not to talk such nonsense and left him. She obtained a separation order against her husband in 1906, and in 1902 he was bound over to keep the peace in respect of her. Defendant's favourite expressions were: “I mean to swing for her” and “I'll make mincemeat of her.”
As Mr. HARRIS was concluding his remarks defendant said “Hurry up, I want to go back to work this afternoon.”
Complainant bore out her solicitor's statement, and said defendant told her that if an order was made against him he should throw up his work and leave the country. He also said he had thrown up his work at 26s 8d and taken on one at £1 per week, in order that the magistrates could not make an order against him. She had since heard that he was earning 23s 4d.
By defendant: She was not drinking the previous afternoon with a lady friend. She never touched beer.
Madoline DARCH, a daughter of the parties, corroborated her mother's story.
Defendant said he gave up his job at 26s 8d per week because he had so many complaints about his wife staying out until one, two, and three o'clock in the morning. He took an outside job so as to be home at night. When he offered her £1 1s she told him to keep it as she could not manage on it. He took her at her word and went, telling her he would give her 8s per week if she gave up the two women she associated with. He was not going to give her any more money until she did so, and if the Bench made an order he would rather spend the rest of his life in prison. He would maintain her if she gave up her associates.
Complainant, re-called, denied that she was out late at night. She was only out the night he locked her out. There was not £30 owing, it was not 30s. She did not owe 43s for beer and spirits, but it might be £1 for liquor she had in the house when her son was home from the Navy.
The Bench granted a separation order, and ordered defendant to contribute 8s per week and pay the cost of the Court, 7s, together with the advocate's fee of £1 1s.
Defendant: I have to pay £30 debts. I have no money. I shall chuck up my work, sir.
MONDAY. - Before the Mayor (Councillor G. HINTON) and Mr. H. J. BADCOCK.
A LABOURER'S SATURDAY NIGHT.
Jack HOSKINS, a labourer, of no fixed abode, was charged with having been drunk, and also with having refused to quite licensed premises when requested, on Saturday night. - Prisoner pleaded guilty. - Mr. A. MORGAN, the landlord of the Fleur de Lys Inn, North-street, stated that prisoner came into the inn drunk on Saturday night, was very objectionable, and insulted witness's customers. Prisoner also wanted to fight, and refused to leave when requested. Witness then called in the police. - Prisoner was fined 5s and 3s costs. - He promised to pay in a week, and said he would not touch a drop of drink again.