The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-01-21 00:00:00

A WORKHOUSE SCANDAL.

Mr. Hedley, of the Local Government Board, has
opened an enquiry at the Wandsworth and Clapham
Union respecting the charges of drunkenness and
cruelty brought against Mr. William Pasfield, the
labour-master, by the Battersea branch of the Social
Democratic Federation. John Ward, late super-
intendent of the relief works, and a member of the
Social Democratic Federation, was sworn, and gave
evidence that on February 10th last he saw Pasfield
taking a pauper to the police court to charge him
with some offence. In the afternoon he saw Pasfield
come back staggering and intoxicated. The porter
asked Pasfield how he had got on, and he replied
"All right. He has got twenty-one days, and I will
have as many more as I like on the same
racket." The men on the relief work saw
saw him drunk and jeered at him. In cross-examina-
tion, witness said he did not report the occurrence to
the guardians. He would have done so if he had
thought the report would have had due consideration.
He (witness) made a note of the occurrence, but he
had either lost or destroyed it.—John Slade, a working
man, gave corrobative evidence. He heard the words
that passed, and he swore that Pasfield was drunk.
There were other persons present, who were waiting
for their rations, and some of them shouted after Pas-
field, " Pick him up," and "He has got 'em on."
Witness remarked to a mate that it was a nice thing
for an official to enter the gates in such a state.
After other evidence the inquiry was adjourned.

MISS VIOLET CAMERON AND

HER HUSBAND.

Mr. David De Bensaude has appeared at the Mary-
lebone Police Court to answer an adjourned summons
charging him with having on December 9th unlawfully
used threats towards his wife, Violet De Bensaude,
better known as Miss Violet Cameron. Mr. G. Lewis
supported the summons; Mr. B. Abrahams defended.
The case for the prosecution closed on the last occa-
sion the matter was before the court, and Mr. Abrahams
now addressed the magistrate on behalf of his client,
remarking that he felt bound to lay the full facts of the
case before his worship, because it was stated publicly
in court that the object of his client was to extort
money from his wife, not because he was jealous of her
receiving attentions from Lord Lonsdale, but to get the
money which she earned at the theatres. On behalf of
his client he desired emphatically to deny this, and he
contended that Mr. Lewis had totally failed to prove
the allegations. The defendant was then called, and
gave evidence. He said he was born on the West
Coast of Africa, but had lived' in Ettgland since he
was five years old. He first saw Miss Cameron in
Manchester, and became acquainted with her in 1881.
He was then carrying on business in the city, and
had an income of over £2OOO a year. They were
married in 1884, after a courtship lasting about
three yeats. Ile gave her valuable presents.
When he married his wife was engaged at the
Comedy Theatre. She had then a small salary, and
he used his influence and capital in furthering his
wife's professional interest. He was absent for a
time on an expedition to Africa, and during that
time he paid £3O a week to his wife. Lord Lonsdale
was introduced to his wife at a ball given by M.
Marius in 1886. Up to that time he (the defendant)
had lived in a friendly way with his wife and had
never received a farthing of her salary. Her mother
received it. Eventually Lord Lonsdale entered into
a theatrical speculation, in which the witness and his
wife were concerned, and they went to Newcastle.
There the witness had his suspicions aroused by
Lord Lonsdale's conduct. He strongly protested
against this and he and Lord Lonsdale fought together,
and Lord Lonsdale knocked him down. Cross-
examined by Mr. Lewis: He could not say that it
was six months after his marriage that he became
bankrupt. Lately he had been in the service of a firm
in Rood-lane, City, on commission. Of the £750 received,
he had reserved. £5OO for his child. He declined to say
where it was. He received money every month from lii
friends, but he declined to say if it was sent from
Morocco, or if it came through a bank. He did not
at first believe that his wife was guilty of adultery,
but he signed
,the petition for divorce on suspicion
merely, claiming £lO,OOO from the co-respondent. It
had occurred to him to sign a petition against his wife,
now knowing that his wife had committed adultery.
Mr. Lewis. : Then why don't you sign the petition f
The witness: You know I cannot get a divorce.
Mr. Lewis: Why don't you get a divorce? The
Witness: lam not going to answer. lam not going
to incriminate myself by saying anything that might
go to another court. Continuing, the defendant ad-
mitted that he constantly, both day and night, went
to his wife's house whenever he thought Lord
Lonsdale was there. His object in going
there was to prevent his wife seeing Lord
Lonsdale. He was not going to allow it.
If he saw him there he would get something for him-
self—he would get a good hiding. (Laughter.) Mr.
Lewis: Thrash Lord Lonsdale ? The Witness : Yes,
thrash him. (Laughter.) Mr. Cooke was satisfied
that a threat had been used, and that the complainant
went in fear thereof. It might be, as Mr. Lewis had
said, that he went to the house to extort money rather
than to do actual bodily harm. He thought that such
a threat had been used as to justify these proceedings.
He thought that the complainant would be sufficiently
protected by his ordering the defendant to enter into
his own recognisances in £250 for his being of good
behaviour and keeping the peace for six calendar
months. The defendant, in an excited manner, said
'he should give notice of appeal. Mr. Cooke: Very
, well; enter into the proper recognisances.