Mexborough and Swinton Times January 25, 1919

A Painful Story

Allegations in a Thurnscoe Case,

At Doncaster, on Saturday, William Jackson, miner, Thurnscoe, who has recently been demobilised, was summoned by his wife, Flory, for neglecting to maintain her and children.

Mr. W. Baddiley, who appeared for the complainant, said they were married in. 1911, and during their married life he had never provided a proper home. He enlisted in September, 1911, and was discharged on December 14 last. Since then he had not contributed anything to his wife support.

He was a miner earning at least 14s. a day.

Mr. Allen said it was true defendant had refused to go back to his wife because he had evidence she had committed adultery.

The complainant said there were two children aged 7 and 4. While her husband was in the Army she received 29s. a week Government allowance and. 7s. from the pit. She had not committed adultery.

Mr Allen: Didn’t your own brother write to this man about your misconduct, and didn’t, he report it to the colliery committee, with the result that your allowance was stopped ?—Yes, but it was stopped for nothing.

Didn’t Mrs Spibey complain of you and her husband? -No.

You know Spibey? – I have spoken to him.

Was it not in consequence of complaints made by Mrs Spibey and your own brother that your allowance and this man (defendant) notified ?

Did Spibey commence “walking you out” in 1916, and in that go on for 18 months? – No.

Didn’t you commit misconduct with him during that time – No.

Mr. Allen submitted there was no case. Defendant had refused to live with his wife again because of her conduct while he was away, there was no desertion in law.          He had never seized to maintain, for she was being maintained up to this day by the Government allowance.

Complainant said she had not received any thing for a fortnight.

Harry Spibey, 6 Orchard St., Thurnscoe, miner, said he had walked the complainant out for 18 months, and had been guilty of misconduct with her. The relationship caused trouble between him and his wife. He alleged complainant was also going out with other men at the time.

Answering Mr. Baddiley, witness said he had known heir for five years, and he knew she was a married woman. He was married in 1915.

Do you think it is anything to your credit? —No, sir, I am ashamed of myself.

What do you call yourself? I can’t find words to describe you. – A fool.

I should say rather more than a fool.

Witness, continuing, said he was in the Butchers’ Arms when Jackson asked him if he was the man who had been “knocking on” with his wife and he asked him if misconduct had taken place.

Witness said he admitted it, and then defendant asked him if he would go as a witness for him.

Mr Allen pointed out that the complainant was entitled to draw separation allowance to that very day, so they could not be any question of failing to maintain her.

The Chairman (Brigadier General Bewicke Copley) said they considered there was no neglect to maintain. On the other matter the evidence was equal. The case would be dismissed