The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-03-25 00:00:00

Xocat anb pistrict Afros.

COUNTY COURT.

SINGULAR ACTION FOR THE M.' i

TENANCE OF A WIFE.

Bird v. Chancr.—JVßY CASE.—At the County
Court held on Wednesday, before Mr. Godson,
Deputy Judge, this was an action brought by
Mr. Daniel Bird, basket maker, to recover the
sum of £2l 6s of Mr. Peter Chance, for the
maintenance of his wife. Mr. Perry appeared
for plaintiff, and Mr. C. Smith, Oxford Circuit
(instructed by Messrs. Penman, Gould, and
Elcock), for the defendant.
Mr. Perry, in opening, said the action was
brought by Mr. Daniel Bird, basket maker,
against Mr. Peter Chance, letter cutter and en-
graver, to recover the sum of .t:2l 6s for the
maintenance of defendant's wife, who is Mr.
Bird's sister. Mr. and Mrs. Chance had lived
together as man and wife for more than thirty
years, and had through carefulness prospered.
He should show the jury that the defendant had
been guilty of the grossest cruelty to his wife,
until she was obliged to take refuge in the house
of her brother (the plaintiffl, who now sought to
recover from the defendant for 27 weeks main-
tenance, being from September 9th, 1870, to
February 3rd, 1871, at the rate of ils per week.
Mr. Chance, like many other men who had got
tired of their wives, retorted to the miserable
course of saying she was insane, and tried to get
her removed to a lunatic asylum. For this par-
pose he informed Mr. Barrett, relieving.oflicer,
that she was insane. She was then brought be-
fore the Magistrates, who gave an order for her
to be examined. She was examined by a sur-
geon, and declared to be sane. He thought the
jury would consider that Mr. Bird did only what
he thought was right by receiving her into his
own house, and the charge made was for her
maintenance. Hefendant had already paid into
Court at the rate of lOs per week, which clearly
showed that he admitted his liability, and it was
for the jury to say whether she was entitled to
the other ss. One guinea, he might say, was
charged for professional advice for defendant's
wife, and it was for the jury to say whether they
would allow it.
Mr. Smith said lie should oppose the guinea
being allowed. The relieving-officer had charge
of the case, which was an ex parte statement.
The following evidence was then given,
Hannah Chance deposed: I am wife of Peter
Chance, the defendant, and, sister to the plain-
tiff. Have been married to defendant about 38
years. In the early part of 1868 the defendant
threatened to put me out of the house, and said
he would bring another woman in. Defendant
did put me out of the house, and shut the door.

In 1.868 I summoned defendant before the Ma-
gistrates for an assault, and the summons was
dismissed. I afterwards went back to live with
him in April 1868, and lived with him for fifteen
months. In June 1869, defendant was continu-
ally illtreating me, struck me, put his fist in my
face, and frequently spat in my face. He often
threatened he would shoot me. Defendant said
that he had a revolver, which would kill six at
once, lie also had a needle-gun, and another
pistol. On another occasion defendant threw a
mark at use. At that time defendant was at the
top of the stairs, and I was at the bottom. It
did not hit me; but he said he would murder
, um, and " swing." On one occasion defendant
struck at me with a poker. It struck the table,
'and broke it. Owing to defendant's violence I
had to go out of the house to sleep. On the
15th June, 1869, defendant beat me so violently
that I was black all over me. On the 16th the
defendant told me to go. I did, and went to
my brother's Mr. Bird), and have lodged with
him ever since, and he has found all I required,
On the 23rd November I was before the Magis-
trates, and on the 28th with Mr. Barratt, who
said that my husband said I was mad, and I
went before the Magistrates, and they made an
order for me to be examined. I was examined
at my brother's house. I never was at an
asylum.
Cross-examined: Never struck my husband.
Did not give him a pair of black eyes. Defend-
ant complained to his mother, and said that a
loaf of bread fell upon him, and blackened his
eyes. I was glad my husband said it was a loaf
of bread and not me that blackened his eyes.
Have never challenged him out to fight. I did
not sleep with him for 15 months. Defendant
refused to sleep with me I did not circulate a
report about defendant having a disease. De-
fendant did tell me that he had beau cured by a
.

trate,

doctor. I have said defendant was not fit. to

sleep with me. Plaintiff is a basket intik, r.
When 1 left defendant in June 1 took what 1

liked from the shop. Defendant told me to take
them. It was about £5 in value. Will swear it
was not £lOO. My brother-in-law did not set up
a clothes shop with the goods I took. The
goods were placed in one part of the window.
On the 20th of July I did take some more
goods, because I heard my husband had gone to
the races along with a young girl. I took eleven
watches. Will not swear the goods are rot
westli £5O. Defendant did commence an action
against my brother-in-law for the goods. I after
sent back everything I took away, except Toy own
clothes. 1 eid not say the woman who keeps
his house is immodest. Defendant hod to pay
£5O to settle a case of rope which would have
been brought against him. Have no one here
to prove it. Defendant boasted of what he had
don to the woman. I have a witness who saw
the defendant strike me. I know Robinson. He
has seen defendant strike me. When I took the
goods away defendant was not at home. He did
not Ltd we he ass going to Great Bridge, but
said he was going after a woman. We both lived
well in the house, but were teetotallers. I do
nothing now but read books. I did not say I
would be kept like a lady, and make defendant
pay for it.
Re-examined: When I lived with my husband
he had house property, and the rent would bring
in from 1:5 to £6 per week, and defendant is on
engraver, and gets £3 a week.
By the Judge: No one was is the house when
I left, but defendant's housekeeper.
Elizabeth Bird, niece of defendant, said she
saw Mrs. Chance on June 16, 1869. Her body
was very much bruised. Had seen defendant
push Mrs. Chance from one side of the room to
the other, and push her out of the shop. She
had to sleep with her many times. Had heard
him threaten to send a bullet through her.
Cross-examined: Defendant did ask me to
live with him as his ,bousekeeper, and that he
would find me plenty of money and keep me like
a lady. My aunt must have heard what was
said. Defendant said at his death he would
leave me £2OO, and two houses. I told him he
' ought to be ashamed of himself, and next day
he turned me out of the house. I did not assist
in removing the goods from defendant's house.
I never shook a smock frock in defendant's face
and said "Here, Peter Chance, these are your
goods." Do not recollect what I swore at the
Magistrates' Court. Do not know the amount
of the goods taken were £9O worth.
Daniel Bird deposed : I mu a basket maker.
On the 16th June my sister came to live at my
house. She was bruised about the arms and
body, and she has lived with me since she left
her husband, with the exception of the time she
was in the Union. I have previously summoned
defendant on a former occasion, and received the
money. The cost of her maintenance is about
15s per week. My sister did go before the Ma-
gistrates, and she was examined by Dr. Camp-
bell.

Cross-examined: I have eleven children. Do
not pay income tax. Have no books with me.
Can't say what I get per week. Hay no notion
what I make per week, not to a pound. Do not
make £lO a week. Can't say it is £5. Keep no
account of it. I guess at the amount of main-
tenance. It does not cost £7 10s per week for
my family There are eleven in the house, the
youngest of whom would be about six. Seven
or eight would be over ten years. My wife does
not drink spirits. One of the actions was set-
tled by defendant paying lOs per week. There
were some goods brought to my house, and put
in the shop window for sale. I did send some
goods back. Cannot say there were three
hundred articles. Did not keep any articles
back. Have not sworn there were only four
articles sold. More might have been sold. I
am not always at home.
lie-examined: Defendant did file a petition
against me to compel me to give 1113 the goods,
and the goods have been returned.
Mr., Smith then addressed the jury for the
defence, and said the case was a very painful
lone to himself and his client, and when they
had heard the evidence he should bring before
them, they would come to the Conclusion that