Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 02 September 1932

Wombwell Couple’s Parting

Another Appearance Before The Court

Neglect Charge Dismissed

The circumstances under which a Wombwell couple, Clifford Crossley, miner, Pickup Crescent, and his wife Ivy, became separated, were again laid before the West Riding Magistrates at Barnsley on Wednesday, when the wife applied for an order against her husband on the ground of neglect.

In May of this year Mrs. Crossley summoned her husband for desertion, and the case was dismissed. Arising out of certain evidence relating to Mrs. Crossley and another man proceedings were taken against Mrs. Crossley and the witness for perjury. They were committed for trial but acquitted. The Chairman of the magistrates on Wednesday was Mr. T. Norton, and the solicitors in the case were Mr. H. F. Slack (Messrs. Dibb & Clegg) for Mrs. Crossley, and Mr. K. M. Walker (Messrs. Bury & Walkers) for Mr. Crossley.

At the outset Mr. Walker intimated that there was no possible chance of the parties getting together again.

Mr. Slack recalled that in May last the wife summoned her husband for desertion, but the magistrates then sitting were not satisfied that desertion was proved and dismissed the case. The Bench suggested that proceedings for perjury be taken against complainant and her one witness. The proceedings were taken and the case heard at the Leeds Assizes, and dismissed. Following upon that complainant considered what to do and ultimately it was decided, in view of the fact that the Bench decided that there was no desertion, to make sure of their ground. A letter was written defendant pointing out that he had failed to provide food or clothing for his wife for a considerable time, and that he had left her and had not returned. Seeing that he, was not providing her with the reasonable necessities of life they would have no alternative but to take proceedings. Defendant’s solicitors replied stating that nothing could be done. He (Mr. Slack) suggested that this was an admission and entitled his client to an order, though it was for defendant to justify his course of action. The only grounds on which he could justify his action was that his wife was a habitual drunkard, or that she was an adulteress. One of these offences had to be proved to justify his course of action.

Mr. Slack went on to say that complainant completely denied that she was a drunkard or an adulteress. The Bench might be of the opinion that she had been indiscreet, but there was a difference between indiscretion and being an adulteress. The law did not allow a man to desert his wife for having done something for which she was sorry afterwards; and if the Bench were of the opinion that she had been indiscreet she was entitled to an order. Mrs. Crossley said she was now living alone. She had never received maintenance any kind from her husband for a considerable time.

Mr. Slack: Are you a habitual drunkard —No.

Have you ever been drunk? – No.

Have you ever committed adultery?—No.

Mr. Walker: You have been married about thirteen years ?—Yes.

And have been fairly happily married until the last eight or nine months?—Yes.

Have you, during the last eight months, been constantly in the company of a man by the name of Cook?—No. I have seen him in the street and spoken to him in the street.

Am you quite sure you have not been constantly in his company ?– Quite sure.

Have you been in public houses in Wombwell on many occasions with this man —Occasionally, but not on many occasions.

You remember Whitsuntide of 1931 ?—Yes. And Christmas, 1931 ?—Yes.

Did you go to Hemsworth with the man Cook at either of these two periods?—l have not been with Mr. Cook on either of those two I occasions.

Have you met him there?—He has been there. On both these occasions, at Whitsuntide and the evening of Boxing Day, 1931, you stayed at the house of a friend of yours at Hemsworth ?—I was there, but I did not stay the night. I walked home and woke my husband up. Witness said she left the house, at which a party was being held, at 6.30 a.m., having never been to bed.

Mr. Walker: Did anyone go to bed?—Mr. Edwards was taken off the couch, drunk.

The facts just mentioned were considered when the case for desertion was brought before the Court in May?—I don’t understand.

Did you tell the same tale?

Mr. Slack : I must object. What has been told this morning did not come out at the previous hearing.

Mr. Walker (to complainant): Since the last proceedings have you seen the man Cook ? —Yes. Have you constantly been in his company? – No.

If I bring witnesses to prove that you have been seen on several occasions in the company of the man Cook will you still deny it?—l shall deny it when I have not constantly been with him. We had to speak somewhere, but everyone in Wombwell was looking at us.

I would like to take your mind back to July of this year. Did you and Cook go for a walk on the road between Darfield and Ardsley?—No.

Then the man I have brought to give evidence that he saw you two sitting in a field at 9.45 is telling lies?—He must be, because I was not there.

Have you ever been walking in Broomhill with Cook?—No. We have met, but it has not been by arrangement.

Funny that you should meet him like this? —Wombwell is only a little place.

“I Have Been A Fool.”

Mr. Walker read extracts from letters sent by complainant to her husband, one of which I said “He (Cook) is a coward. I have finished with him. He lied to serve his own ends. I have been a fool.”

Questioned as to the reason for the latter sentence witness said she had been a fool for what she had done. She agreed that her husband had not worked for four years on account of nystagmus, but had recently secured a job.

Mr. Walker: Why have you signed your letters to your husband “Ivy Turton,” your maiden name’—Because he called me that in the street.

Addressing the Bench, Mr. Walker said he was in the unfortunate position of having to defend a case which was worded slightly different to what it had been before. The complainant had a right to bring the case, but she brought it like this because if it had been desertion it would have been dismissed again.

Mr. Slack : I do not agree.

Mr. Walker said that in his opinion it was having two bites at one cherry. The facts that day were similar to the facts which had been brought at the previous hearing. The defendant complained that on several occasions his wife had been drunk at public houses in Wombwell. Defendant warned his wife about this, but his suspicions were aroused by constant meetings between the couple at Wombwell. He made enquiries and heard that his wife had been at a house at Hemsworth and that she stayed there at Whitsuntide and Christmas of last year. Later the case for desertion was brought before the Court. Defendant took out a witnesses’ summons against both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, and apparently it not out it they received the summons to attend court that they knew that the man who had been making inquiries at their house was really Mr. Crossley. They had believed that they were entertaining Mr. Crossley when it was Cook who visited with Mrs. Crossley. The case was heard on May 11th of this year, and later the question of perjury came before the Court. He proposed to bring evidence that since the Court proceedings in May, Mrs. Crowley had been meeting Cook.

The defendant Crossley told the Magistrates that his married life had been happy until recently. Following his receiving of the news that his wife had been seen at Hemsworth, he made certain enquiries, telling Mrs. Edwards that he was a friend of the Crossley’s.

Mr. Slack: Why did you desert your wife? —I forget. It was some paltry reason.

How long were you away?—Three weeks.

And you only came back under the threat of a solicitor’s letter?—Yes.

Eliza Edwards, of Bush Street, Hemsworth, said that at both Whitsuntide and Boxing Day last year Mrs. Crossley and Cook stayed at their house, witness being under the impression that Cook was Mr. Crossley. They both stayed the night, and witness did not realise what was wrong until she received intimation that she had to attend Court. On one occasion witness came downstairs and found Mrs. Crossley, partly dressed, in the room with Cook, who was sitting on a couch.

Thomas Edwards, husband of the last witness, gave similar evidence.

Herbert Lockwood, of 74, Blythe Street, Wombwell, said that at 9.45 on the evening of Thursday, July 21st, he was passing through a field at Ardsley when he saw Mrs. Crossley and Cook sitting in the grass. He had seen them on many occasions.

Annie Hoyle, a married woman, of 42, Barnsley Road, Wombwell said she had seen Mrs. Crossley and Cook together in Broomhill Lane. Wombwell.

The case was dismissed, the Chairman stating that there was no case in which an order could be made.