The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-11-25 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

ACTION FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF A WIFE.

Clogroti. v. Watt r.--At the County Court on Tuesday,
before Mr. Lanciale Warren, Deputy• Judge, thin was Cu
Action to recover the bum of £7 4s for the maintenance

4 defeedaet'a daughter for 18 weeks, at eight7Cl ling
rr week.
. _

,
Mr. Collis appeared tor plaintiff, and Mr. Stokes for
,ne defendant.

In opening the case, Mr. Collis said that both parties
:tad lived at Wall Heath. Defendant married the
titre daughter in May last. She left him in about • month
through defendant's illtreatment, and the plaintiff loid
kept her for eighteen weeks, and the action was to reco-
ver that sum.

Plaintiff said the defendant married his daughter in
May last. In consequence of defendant's treatment she
came to live with him on the let July. He bn,i kept her
for eighteen weeks, and he now sued for eighteen weeks'
keep at ds per week. He had applied to the defendant to
know if he had got a'home. Defendant said he had not,
and that she could go to the Workhouse if she liked

Jemima Slater said she is wife of defendant. Was
marrMd in May, and went to reside with her sister after
staying one month. Defendant went away and stayed
four days, saying he was going to live at his mother's,
but he went to live with his sister. After the four days,
he asked witness to go to her sister's to lodge. She went
and lodged there aif irtuight. During that time defend-
ant was very sulky, and made use of bad langua,n,e. He
. then went away. Ile did not leave me any money. He
went to live at Mary Hall's, at Wordsley. Defendant
formerly kept company with her. On one occasion she
saw the defendant and Mary Hall go into public•house.
Witness asked him if lie was going home. Defendant
replied that he should not go home with her again, but
that he would cut her heart out, and nhow it to her. He
then struck her on the shoulder. Witness summoned
him before Mr. Spooner, and defendant was bound over
to keep the peace. Defendant also summoned witness at •
‘Vordsley for stealing his clothes, and the case was dis-
missed. Witness had to go the Union for a home. She
was there a week, and afterwards went to live with her
father. Defendant is in receipt of good wages.
Two other witnesses were also called to prove the case,
and

_
Mr. Stokes addressed his Honour for the defence. He
considered it was most lamentable for two young people
like the defendant and his wife to be separated. Prom
the evidence, he ellatecded that the parents had idme
nothing to bring th..ni together, which it was their duty
to try to do, and submitted that another eourse:of action
should have been taken. Ile also contended that the
defendant had offered his wife a home, and called
Mr. Burhory, who said he defended Salter at the
Brierley Hill Police Court for the assault upon his wife,
and he heard the defendant offer her a home both in and
out of Court. Defendant also swore that he had slime
for hia wife, and that she had not come to it.
Defendant denied living with Mary Hall, and said he
lived with his sister, and his wife had refused to live with
him.

_-
Mr. Collis replied, and
His Honour in aumining up, said according to the evi.
dence he considemdtlic plaintiff was entitled to • verdict
It was true there seas pretty nearly cath against oath, hut
then he had to look at the way in with the witnesses had
given their evidence. He considered the way defendant
had conducted himself in the box,leughing and giggling
as he had done when Mary Halls name was mentioned,
very bad, and he was inclined to believe the evidence of
the plaintiff and her witnesses, and should give the plain•
tiff a verdict for the full amount claimed, and costs.

Hart and Otherr v. baries.—This was as action to
recover the sum of £6 10s, balance of account—Mr
Stokes appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Perry defended.—
From the evidence it appears that the plaintiffs are sowe
of a comwitte of a picnic held in a hell by the railway
station on the 31st of August, and the defendant James
Davies. is a confectioner, and bib the booth to supply
refreshments. Defendant pleaded a setoff of £.2 9s and
paid £2 is into Court. Plaintiffs admitted 19s, but dis-
puted the item of £llO6 for the use of • tent for the
committee.—Thomas and William Robins gave evidence
to the effect that they were engaged to erect the tents
that one blew down, and they asked defendant if the
committee could nee the canvas for a committee tent.
Defendant said they could have it if they liked.—The
defendant was sailed, and said ha hired two tents, and
paid £Blos for the use of them. One blew down and
he let the committee have it, and charged them 30s for
the use of it.—His Honour gave a verdict for plaintiffs,
with costs.