Nantwich, Sandbach & Crewe Star — 1890-06-21 ()

INDIGNANT SPOUSE.  Thomas Brereton, builder, of Crewe, was summoned for unlawfully assaul:ing and beati- g his wife, Jane Brereton, on the 3rd of June. Ur leareley appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Chester for defendant. The complainant's counsel said the patties had been married 25 yea's. During that time they ha resided at Shavington, Bridge Mere and C•rewe. The first part of their married life was spent perfectly amicably, but during the last ten yr ars complainant life had been one of martyrdom. Her husband continually ill treated her. On the night of June 3rd he went into the bedroll% dragged her out of bed, kicked her and otherwise assaulted tier. He also told her that it would b, another Davies case, as he would murder her. He the solicitor, thought that after he had prow(' it to be an aggravated case of assault, he would be justified in making a farther application for a separation order, and a settled allowance,—The complainant said that she then resided at 2, St dford-street, Crewe. On June 3rd, about 11 p.m., she wise in bed with her daughter, when the defendant entered the room, and commenced to assault her, by kicking her. He threatened her by saying that there would be another Davies case. She reinlined in the house until morning, when she left about six o'clock. She had not been bail but once since, to fctth some clothe , and had lodged at the address previously stared. —ln answer to Mr Chester, she said that her daughtet and the rest of leer family wore in the house at the time of the assault. The reason why her daughter did not attend court was because she was .tofiraid to come. She was perfectly sober at the time. Her husband did not have any shoes on his feet wit, I) he came into the bed room. It was not a fact the; her husband and daughter had to go downs airs at 11 o'clock at night on the 3rd of June to fetch hvr in b. cause she was drunk. She had not been to the house of her husband from the 3rd ts) the 10th of June, but once, to fetch some clean clothee,and he then slamm.d the door in her face. She had never since that day slept in the house. She was not famifiar with the pawn shops in Crewe, and she had never been in tne in Crewe. She had never taken any clothes from the House and pawned them. She left her husband's house at 6 o'clock on the following morning, and did not go to the public-house. She was not drunk on the occasion.—Mr Chester: Ido not want to lead you astray from your evidence, but I can prove that you resided several days with your huebend at his house after the alleged assault was committed.—The complamant : I s,-Ited two days in the house with my husband. I only want peace and quietness.—Mr Chester : Yes, and a drop of something to drink occasionall.—Mr Chaster, in defence, said that after hearing the evidence they could only come to one conclusion. The complainant. he could prove by members of the family, was a woman of intemperate habits, and from time to time caused her husband great annoyance. When she had any money it was spent at the publia-house. She took whatever she could lay her hands up in to the Pawn-shop and deposit it and spend the proceeds in drink. On the day in question she had been out neatly all day, and came to the door about 11 o'cl4ck. Ste was then under the influence of drink. Her husband and daughter had to go downstairs and convey her t her bedroom, which a-caunted for her husband being without his shoes. (The complainant, in the rear: No, sir, nothing of the sort.) In the morning she took het departure from the house and went to the " &runlet' Arms." Such was the state of affairs when the assault was alleged to have taken place. She ha also resided at the house the greater portion of th, time be ween the 3rd and 11th of June. It was nor nutil he prevented her taking the mejority of things from the house that she left. If she would. conduct herself properly there would be a good hems ready for tier.--The Bench considered the evidence and dismissed the tease.