Widnes Examiner. — 1902-11-21 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

DOMESTIC DIFFERENCES. -John Jackson, 3 New Springs, Wigan-road, Aspull, was summoned for persistent cruelty to his wife Ann Jackson, whose address was given as 35 Birchall-street, Warrington.—Mr Browne appeared for the omplainant and defendant was represented by Mr W dr, Shawcross, barrister,Manehester (instructed by Mr J Wilson, solicitor, Wigan).—Mr Browns said defendant was a man of substantial means and resided at New Springs, Aspull. He had been married twenty-five yeSts, and, unfortunately gave :way to drink eleven years ago, and ever since then he had illtreated his wile. She load had to run out of the house a all hours of the night to get out of his way. She had stayed away from him for a week at a time on numerms occasions owing to his treatment and had stayed with her sister-inlaw at Warrington. The last time she stayed there was at the end of September. After she had been there a week defendant Came over and began crying and saying how sorry be was for all that had occurred. Ee undertook not to take drink In future end lived with her at Warrington for a week, tie behaved well for six days but on the seventh be went out in the morning and at night returned 'mad drunk." He made Use of most swill threats, telling her that she most go home with in and they wadi,' die together. Complainant believcd he would  murder her and told him she would not live with him again. —A large number of witnesses were called and It was denied that complainant was of drunken habits—Tile defence was that the parties lived together In comparative happiness until two years ago. Defendant's wife then commenced to go out drinking with neighbonrs and came home under the inflo• enca of drink. Defect tent complained and they got to words ani defendant. when in drink had perhaps used abusive language. He had never treated his wife cruelly, and denied making use of the threat at Warrington.—Evidence was given bearing out this version of the case.— The Henan cansuited in private and on their return into court the Chairman said they did not think persistent cruelty had been proved sufficiently to justify them making a separation order. They however felt that defendant's conduct had been Buell as to justify them in reprimanding him very severely. They hoped he would pay the costs. TROLNICALITY PROCURES DlettleelL.—Mary Rinsella, 4 Halirax•street, brought an action against John Stephens, 13 Legh-street, on behalf of the British Natural Premium Life Association Limited, London, to recover ten guineas due on a policy payable on the death of her son—Mr Steel represented plaintiff and Mr Riley, barrister (instructed by Mr Lootson, of Leigh) appeared for the defendant company— Mr Steel said this matter was before the Court about three weeks ago, and it was stated by Counsel for the defendants that the company was in liquidatiou. In view of that fact it was decided to withdraw the case. It came to his know. ledge that the present defendants the British Natural Premium Life Association,Limited, told taken over the liabilities of the National Guardian assurance Co., and consequeutly. summons was issued against them—Mr Riley asked to be allowed to take a preliminary objection. The summons was issued against John Steevens, on behalf of the British National Premium Life Association, Limited. His objection , was that this insurance company was a limited company and was not registered under the Friendly Societies Act. It was therefore impossible to sue a man on behalf of the company • They could only sue a limited company by serving a process at the registered effioe of the company.— Mr Steel submitted that defendants waived their objection 40 any irregularit.7 by appearing at the Court that day. That was the first Intimation he had received that the company was not registered under the Friendly Societies I Act. It was quite evident that the company wished to avoid liability by teahnisalities.—The magistrates clerk said that as the company was not regissered under the Friendly Societies act, the Court had no jurisdiction • The case would hate to go to to the County Coart.—Mr Steel said the proceedings were no credit to the Company.—Mr Riley said the claim would have been paid long since lilt was a good one. The company had a good defence apart from the teehnical objection Übe policy having lapsed months ago.—Mr Steel said his friend might take It that the matter would Rat rest, The case would be taken in the County Court. DF.