Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 14 October 1892
Brutal Wife Assault at Swinton
Is Married a Failure?
Herbert Newbey, fish hawker, a respectively dress married man, residing at Temperance Terrace, Swinton, was summoned by Rebecca Newbey his wife, for assaulting her on the 25th. He pleaded not guilty and was represented by Mr Hickmott. Mr Gichard appeared on behalf of complainant.
Mr Gichard, in his opening statement, stated that the parties were married at Christmas 1891. They are not live together constantly, and defendant had alleged that the cause of the unhappiness between them was owing to complainant’s mother. Several times during the few months they had been married, the defendant had ill-treated his wife very badly indeed. He had not only struck her but kicked her as well.
On the 24th of the last month the day before that named in the summons (it was a Saturday) defendant accused her of having stolen £6 10s., and he afterwards went for a constable, and in his presence, accused her of having taken the money. Subsequently complainant went to bed, and early next morning – it would be about 2 o’clock – the defendant came upstairs and struck her on one of her breasts, and then “nipped” her until she fainted. After doing that defendant said “You b—– I will make you tell me where the money is.”
After recovering consciousness defendant remarked “It was a thousand pities she did not die.” In the presence of a man named Turner in the house he again accused her of having taken the money; and admitted the assault, and said “I will do it again.” Turner remonstrated with him on his conduct. The following day she took out a summons against him, and was determined not to live with him again so that case was settled. In fact she found that she ought not to live with him again, on account of the injury she thought he would do to her.
Defendant was a fish salesman. According to the arrangements she had made with him, complainant went on the 27th to the house to fetch her clothes. Defendant was there at the time she arrived, and he again assaulted her. He struck her, knocked her head against the dresser, and in knocking about broke a lamp. Several times he had told that she had better go away from him, and he would allow her a weekly sum. He had named on one occasion 7s 6d. Complainant would tell the Bench that she had been badly used, and had been unable to get proper food.
Complainant was then examined. She stated that they were married at Kilnhurst Church, at Christmas 1891. Since that time he had ill-treated her frequently by thumping and punching. He first assaulted her about a month after they were married. Often she had not had sufficient food, and had been obliged to get additional nourishment from my mother. He had often told her that he wished he was dead. He had been giving her 10s 3d a week to keep the house on. From what he had told her she believed that he was earning between £5 and £6 per week. She was afraid to live with him, as she thought he might do her injury. They had lived at the Temperance Terrace, Swinton.
Cross-examined: She admitted having refused to go to live with her husband at Kilnhurst, on account of it being near to defendant’s mother. It was true that she received as much as 30 shillings per week from her husband. She did not deny going into the market at Mexborough on the 24th ult. to see defendant, but she denied that she kicked up a row or upbraided her husband. She admitted that he ordered out of the market, but denied having taken the money. When she fetched her clothes she did not commence the bother. It was not true that she stuck him with a vase, nor did she break the lamp in striking him.
Mr Jubb, the chairman, suggested that the parties, instead of proceeding with the case, and washing their “dirty linen in public,” she tried to come to some amicable arrangement.
Acting on the advice of the Chairman, a consultation between the parties here took place, and Mr Hickmott said defendant, whose earnings were about 30 shillings weekly, was willing to contribute 7s 6d out of that sum towards his wife’s maintenance.
Mr Gichard intimated that his client was willing to accept the sum stated.
The Bench concurred with the agreement, and fined defendant 1s and costs for the assault.