Hide Article Text (OCR)
MARRIED WOMEN S PROTEC- 1 TION ACT.Several cases, indicating difficulties connectedwith the carrying out of the Married Women’s Protee-. tion Act, came before Metropolitan Police-courts yesterdayAt Southwark, before Mr. Slade, Edward Appleton, a young man, described as a box-office kee|er, was summoned under the new Act for deserting nud neglecting to maintain his wife and child.—Mr. Sydney prosecuted, and Mr. Gruggen defended.— Ellen Appleton, with a baby iu her arms, stated that she married the Detendant on October 7th, 1894, and he deserted her on November 11th, Xb9b. A few days afterwards the furniture was removed, and she was left in bare rooms. During the following three weeks the Defendant sent her threo remittances by post, one of ten shillings and two of 15s.; but since then she had received nothing from him. While they lived together he frequently assaulted her, and on December 6 ho was ordered to find a surety to keep the peace. he agreed to a separation, with an allowance of 15s. a week, but the deed was never signed. She pawned her wedding ring to buy food, and was now maintained by her parents, who were poor people.—Cross-examined: When her husband sent her the money he was box-office keeper at the Duke of York’s Theatre. She was not aware that he had been out of employment since November 50. She was not possessed of valuable jewellery when her husband left her. Two balf-hoop diamond rings, and a diamond and pearl ring had b eu pledged long before then. She had a curb chain bracelet, which her husband found at tho theatre, and brought home and gave to her; and she had a chain riug, vhich was her engagement ring. Those two articles were still in her possession.—Mr. Gruggen: So vou had plenty to live upon.—The Magistrate: She pawned her wedding ring, you know. Tnat is the last resort, 1 suppose.—Mrs. Appleton : Yes, your Worship; and 1 nave had to go to the relieving officer.—The Defendaut went into the box, and stated that he had not earned a penny since November 30.—Cross-examined: He had applied at all tho theatres in London, but only tor box-office work.—Mr. William George Appleton, of 5, Rochester-terrace, Camden Town, said the Defen-uant was his only child, and was being maintained by him while out of employment.—Cross-examined : He supplied the Defendant with pocket-money, aud was willing to bring up his grandchild if the mother would part with it, but he would have nothing to do with )»er as he disapproved of the marriage.—The Magistrate said he thought the caso came with a the Act, but he did not wish to make an order as the man was out ot work. He adjourned the ease ii; order that a separation deed might be signed on the terms origiually agreed.At the Thames Police-court, Edward Binnell was summoned for assaulting hia wife, Annie.—Mr. Bed-
Newspaper Details
London Standard
London, Middlesex, GB
Thu, Jan 09, 1896
Page 7
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
CA, USA 24 May 2018
Other Publications Near London, Middlesex
Bingleys Journal
Arminian Magazine
London Daily Mail
London Stars and Stripes
London Daily Universal Register
