The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-07 00:00:00

LIABILITY TO MAINTAIN A WIFE.

At the Salford Court of Record, on Friday, before Mr.
Sergeant Wheeler, LLD., the case of William Butterworth

v. William Towers, was tried. The plaintiff is a small

manufacturer at Prestwich, and the defendant a mill-
wright and machine maker, of Livesey-street. The plain-

tiff claimed £l5 10s. for board, lodging, washing, and
clothing, supplied to the defendant's wife, from the 17th
of February to the 21st of April last. The board, lodging,
and washing were charged at the rate of £l2s. per week.
The defendant pleaded non-liability, and that the charge
was exorbitant. Mr. Holker, for the plaintiff, said that

the defendant married, in 1855, the daughter of Mr.

William Wovendon, wholesale confectioner, of Shudehill.
They lived happily together for Si few months ; but,

unfortunately, the defendant had five children, among
whom were grown-up daughters, the issue of a previous
marriage, living with him. They were prejudiced against

the second wife, and soon succeeded in inflaming the
mind of the defendant against her. He allowed them to
insult her in his presence, and at last he began to treat
her very cruelly himself. He frequently pushed her
about, struck her, and compelled her to eat her meals
in the cellar "like a dog off a platter," while he and his
daughters took their meals in the parlour. He discharged
his servant, made his wife do all the most menial work
of the house, and made her his daughters' drudge. The
result was that the woman had been completely broken
down, physically and mentally, and was now a mere
wreck. The defendant was subject to attacks of rheu•
matism, on which occasions his wife attended to his
wants. In the early part of February he had one of
these attacks. About one o'clock one moaning he called
f
his wife, who had had but little rest during the night,
and because she did not answer in a moment, he "gently
kicked her off the bed." At nine o'clock the same
he went down stairs, and ordered her out o
holding a poker over her head in a threuasteenar t h morning
attitude house,
but
to compel her to go. She left the ho
taking with her nothing
what
be when she was
wear-
ing at the time. She had she weegaesrdinglv
a gooded wanything from her hus-
married, but had never received
would not allow her to go
band afterwards except boots.
allowed her only one shilling a fortnight
large property, he
The
out more than once a fortnight. Though emanThwouhgehnthuernweadsoaurat
oafnhoerf
mbrysh.misaudrpviheye,rwethuorneneddethaveesuamreed.
for pocket money.
anded
a reconciliation,agaiil retu inbut
whenwithout
tthe
e effect.
defendant Fetu re dayskh er
evening
home wewntittheahfrierefantdh,eneasm,
Jamesb afterwardsy t nh procureegn si
lheoeyuh, lead er
friend,and turneds aw
the
eher
defendantout.
subject,Alr.
when he said, " Let the consequence be what it will I'll
not take her back ; but I don't mind paying anything in
reason to get shut of her." He then offered to pay her
48. a week; for, he said, he "could get her kept for that
in the workhouse." After this the wife went to live at
aaamoun sincet oofffetrheed ctlea iaml
1,0 bwu
ht
ehr e
id°
si d. npoe tr rweeep I
ky:
plaintiff's house. The defendant had been twice writ-
ttheneutgohforhethhe
In support of this statement, Mrs. Towers, the defendant's
wife, said the defendant not only beat her, but his
daughter Emma beat her also. On the morning in ques-
tion, the defendant followed her up and down stairs with
a poker in his hand.—Mrs. Wovenden spoke to the value
of the defendant's property. Mrs. Connor stated that she
saw defendant push his wife out of the house the second
time she applied for the reconcilation.—Jame Riley
said he had heard the defendant declare that he
would never receive his wife again. The plaintiff
having proved that the goods were supplied, Mr Hope sub-
mitted for the defence that the wife had no right to leave
her husband's house. He had told her to go when he was
in a passion, and a passionate word did not show a fixed
purpose to turn her out. A wifa was not justified in tak-
ing a husband at his word in that way ; her departure fr_atnr
her husband's house was her own act, and not with lane,
husband's consent, and, therefore, he was not liable. _De!
supposing him to be liable, the amount wasbeyond ll
question exorbitant. He called the defendant, whot, ad-
mitted that he had pushed his wife about, but
as
nenat
more
hav-
ing struck her. If he had struck her,
Adith:r out on the
than once. He also denied having plisb7n-2. lie admitted
second occasion that she came to
to frighten her.—
having held the poker over her head,sneiybhurt
intention of striking her; it
wasLinartly-dressed young
said he had no
Emma Towers, a good-looking Mrs. Towers, but candidly
woman, denied having beactif,
admitted that she that the defendant had told
her, and always called her
the case, the judge said, if
his wife to go.—ln
Baa to
Mary." She also admitted
a married woman, the mere
necessaries were supplied
oparation did not render the husband
oi:s must prove that the separation had
rcumstances as to give him authe.
phreoholef.ofdTthuhenedfsperLiits:ch
occurred
such such necessaries. He must prove either
city to supplyuaband had turned the wife away ; that he had
t cruelty to justify her leaving ; or that the
took place by mutual consent. With !re d
gar to
separation
the amount of the ciatm, the jury knew the defendant's po-
uthseadt tshu.efahcien
sition, and they had seen the position which his daughter
appeared to occupy, her style of dress, &c. ; and he (the
learned judge) considered that the wife was entitled to
dress at least as well as the defendant's daughter, and t °
occupy at least as good a position. The jury oturn
wied a
verdict for the plaintiff for the full araeuul char°d
MI%