The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1889-02-02 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

WIFE THRASHED FOR NOT GOING TO CHURCH.  At the Borough Police Court, on Wednesday, a young man named Thomas Hodien, 239 St. Anne-street, was summoned for assaulting his wife, Ellen Hodien. Mr. Dalby appeared for the prosecution. Complainant, & young woman of respectable appearance, stated that she was married to defendant about two months ago. On Sunday last her husband came home in very bad temper—why, she did know, but she supposed because she did not go to church t'ntt morning, At half-two o'clock he said he would go out and when she asked him to , remain in he attacked her, kicked her on the I lower parts of the body, and struck her in the face, giving her a black eye. She ran out of the house shouting murder, and the neighbours came to her &seine/ice. Since then she had been spittirg blood. Defendant was at the time quite sober. Three weeks after the marriage defendant pulled her out of bed by the hair of the head. Sometime ago she wee left £2OO by a friend, and all her husband's efforts were directed towards getting possession of this money. She wished to get a eepsration from him. Defendant, when he liked, could earn 505. a week. Dr. Miller ; having described the injuries from which complainant was suffering, the case was , adjourned until Thureday. When the case came up on Thursday defendant wee represented by Mr. James , (Messrs. Madden, James, and Smith, Liver. pool). Complainant, in reply to Mr. Preston, said they had not quarrelled on other occasions because she would not go to church. They were both Roman Catholics, so there were no religious differences between them. Four days after she was married he asked her would she give him what money she had in the bank, and when she refused he threatened to leave her and go to America. The £2OO she had was settled upon her by a gentleman—whose name she was not to mention either in court or anywhere else—because of an assault he had committed upon her when she was living in London. Complainant then gave the name of the lawyers who had made the settlement. When in London she was in haziness as a tailorese.  Mr. Preston: Have you any family ? Complainant: Any meters or brothers? Mr. Preston: No; any family? Witness : No, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. James : The gentleman who gave her the £2OO was not in court nor any friend of his. She declined to say anything shoat the money given her. Mr. Preston was appealed to, but he ruled that it was not necessary to go into that question. Cross - examination continued: She had known the prieoner for eight years. He had kept company for two years and nine months with her sister. She was married to defendant nine weeke ago at Our Lady's Church. She did not go to church at all that Sunday. In Vie morning she was unwell and had the dinner to cook, and in the afternoon he gave her a black eye, and therefore she could not go. Mr. James: Didn't you feel it you duty to go to church? Complainant: Yes sir, I did. Mr. James: Then why didn't you carry it out when told to do so by your husband ?  Mr. Preston : She catt'clO as she likes about that. . . .  Complainant: What is the use of s man's going to church and then going home and abusing his wife. I would rather stay away than do that. Mr. James: How mach of this £2OO have ycn got left? Complainant: That's my business. Mr. James: I prefer to have an answer?  Complainant :'Then you won't get one. Mr. ?roam: I don't see that it nuitters.  Mr. James: We are prepared to agree to a separation. We have both agreed as to the figures for the allowance, and the only thing between note the question of costs. Eventually it was agreed that defendant should pay £2 costs, and sign a decd of septum. tion on terms to be agreed upon, and his Worship then adjourned the case for s fort. night to allow of the papers being drawn up and signed.