Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

Extraordinary Assault Case.

News
Cite
Share

Extraordinary Assault Case. UNHAPPY SEQUEL TO A MARRIACE. QUARRY PROPRIETOR AND HIS PAST LADY LOVE. SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES. The appearance at the Rhyl Petty Sessions on Tuesday, before Dr W T Girdlestono and other magistrates, of a quarry owner along with two fashionably dressed ladies-the one being his wife and the other an acquaintance with whom he had been on most intimate terms and whom he now summoned for assault-excited an immense amount of curiosity as to what were the circum- stances of the case. Standing room was scarcely obtainable when Mr Oliver George, the magistrates' clerk, called on the case in which John Dawson Bulcock, quarry proprietor, Ingledene, Mostyn, charged Kate Delaville, widow, of Prospect House, High Street, Prestatyn, with an assault, at Talacre, on the 1st inst. There was also a summons by Mrs Delaville against Gertrude Bulcock, wife of the complainant in the first case, for assault and battery at the same time and place and a further case in which Mr Bulcock applied for sureties against Mrs Delaville to keep the peace, he being in fear of bodily harm from her. !?- Mr F J Gamlin appeared for Mr and Mrs Bulcock, and Mr W Madden, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr J Pierce Lewis), appeared for Mrs Delaville. Mr Gamlin opened the first case by stating that he appeared on behalf ot Mr John Dawson Bulcock to ask the Bench to convict Mrs Delaville of an assault upon him. Mr Madden Let your client stand up. so that the Court may see the stalwart man whom this very little woman assaulted (laughter). Mr Bulcock having stood up, Mr Gamlin pro- ceeded to state that whether his client was as big as a mountain or Mrs Delaville as small as a mouse he was entitled to the protection of the law. Mr Bulcock was a quarry proprietor carrying on business at Talacre, and in the case it would be necessary to make some sensational disclosures. Mr Madden Not sensational, but common everyday things. Mr Gamlin They may be common everyday things in the experience of my friend, but not to me or to the Court. Continuing, he said his client wat bound to come into court after the treatment he had experienced. Complainant was introduced to defendant some years ago, and he kept her as his mistress. He (Mr Gamlin) believed he also kept up an establishment for her while he was a single man. It was only right to say that he knew defendant first of all when she was a married woman and while her husband was abroad in Africa or somewhere else. It was then that he was introduced to her, and it was then that the first intercourse took place between them. When her husband died complainant kept her as his mistress. But she proved unfaithful to him and took up with other men, with the result that he decided that he could not con- tinue to maintain her after she had bestowed her favours upon other men. It so happened, however, that the lintercourse complainant had had with defendant resolved itself into the birth of an illegitimate child, which was born at Chester in April, 1902. It was then arranged between the parties that the child should be regis- tered in the name of John Eric Bell, and it was left with some very kind people in Chester, who were rearing it up, complainant arranging to pay 7s 6d per week for its maintenance. After the birth of the child the parties returned to Liverpool, and no one knew that anything had happened. Matters went on in that way until complainant was introduced some time last year to the lady who was now his wife. It was ar- ranged that they should be married on the 7th of February last. Complainant told this lady the whole of the circumstances under which he had been living with defendant, and, though aware of the whole of the facts, she was quite willing to take complainant to be her husband on his assurance that from that time no improper relations should take place between complainant and defendant. He gave that assurance, and the wedding took place on the date arranged. But when defendant heard that the wedding was to take place she threatened to do complainant and his wife bodily injury, with the result that he consulted his solicitor in Liverpool, and de- fendant went to hers. The latter gentleman, Mr Quilliam, wrote a letter to complainant's solici- tor on January 7th last, whereby terms of a compromise were come to between the parties, so as to end all future relations between them. In this letter Mr Quilliam said he had seen his client on the question of the offer which had been made to her, and she was prepared to accept the same. The terms were that complainant should pay defendant JE25, and 10s per week for three years, and undertake the responsibility of the main- tenance of the child until it reached the age of 16 years. Defendant was not to molest him, nor take any steps against him in respect to an alleged promise of marriage, nor to write to him except under exceptional circumstances, and then only through his solicitor. She was also to allow the child to remain in Chester, unless it was mutually agreed to the contrary, and to have access to the child for six hours once a week, and complainant was to keep her informed once a month as to the health of the child. The deed was solemnly executed, and the complainant had regularly paid her the money. Notwithstanding that, defendant went to Prestatyn to live, so as to be near him, and she was continually annoying him on the high 9 road by riding her bicycle wherever he happened to be, and followed him and his wife about. In fact Mr Bulcock had had to complain to her solicitor, and her solicitor had written a letter on the matter. That letter came into the possession of the complainant in an extraordinary manner. She met him on the road and threw the letter at his head. In that letter Mr Quilliam told her that he thought she was not acting judiciously in her own interest in forcing her presence at all times on complainant, and that it would be more to her dignity if she refrained from so doing, and he questioned whether she was not jeopardising the payments of money under the agreement. On the day in question Mr Bulcock had gone to the quarry at Talacre with his wife and friends, and he had left his wife's bicycle in the roadway. He then saw the defendant hiding behind a hedge, and when it was time for his wife to return he went down the road with her to see that the defendant had gone, as he did not care to trust his wife alone with the defendant. He walked down, and did not see the defendant until he "got right opposite to where she was standing with her bicycle. She rushed out and started shouting and raving about Chester that she had been there and seen the Chief Constable and other people. She declared she would speak with him. She got in front of the bicycle, a d did all she could to make complainant lose his temper and commit an assault. Mrs Bulcock pre- vented her getting near Mr Bulcock until tney were near the gate of the house of Mr William Bulcock. The defendant caught hold of com- plainant's arm with both hands and hung on to him for about a minute. Mrs Bulcock then very gently took her hands away. Defendant then slid down, probably for effect and to cause a scene. It was true that Mr Bulcock was not much hurt, but there had been a technical assault, and he asked the Bench to say that an assault had been committed. Mr Pierce Lewis had written suggesting that the cases might be withdrawn and and that defendant should have the custody of the child, but it was felt to be necessary that the case should be gone on with. Mr Buloock In the Witness Box. Complainant was then called, and gave evidence bearing out Mr Gamlin's statement. Mr Madden asked for Mrs Bulcock to be present in court, but to that Mr Gamlin objected, eaying that it was nothing more than an attempt to .subject the lady to indignities. The Bench declined to call the lady in. In cross-examination, Mr Bulcock said it was true that he had made the acquaintance of the lady when her husband was living, and notwith- standing that, he put himself forward as a gentle- man and an honourable man, as much so as coins 1. It was not a case of his going to her house and seducing her he was dragged to the ijouse. He went there with his brother, and 20 others might have taken him there. Counsel Dare you say that any other man besidei you had anything to do with her ? —I need not say so. Vou knew her husband was coming home and did she not entreat you to leave her alone?— Never, I never had the chance to leave her alone. Poor fellow Is it not a fact that while her husband was at home you dared not go near the bouse'/—Certainly not. In reply to further questions, the witness said he had instructed his solicitor to say that defendant had confessed to him that she had been unfaithful to him. Counsel: Does that apply to the other ladies you have had to deal with ? Mr Gamlin objected, and said they must draw the line somewhere. Counsel Well, we'll draw the line at his own wife. The Chairman thought that there was no occasion to blacken the complainant's character any further. Counsel replied that he was quite content to leave the matter where it was if the Bench thought that, complainant's character was black enough .(laughter). Proceeding, he remarked that when .there were two women in a case there was no telling to what extent they would go. In this case I there were two women, one man and & baby. Witness considered that defendant had come to him to annoy and punish him he had been punished enough already, and had to pay for his folly. He wanted to end the matter, or he would not have brought the case to court. Mr Gamlin here produced the following letter, which the defendant had written to Mr J D Bulcock's solicitor in Liverpool:— "Prospect House, Prestatyn, Sunday, May 24, 1903.— Dear Sir,—If you are still acting for Mr J D Bulcock, will yoa please c nvey a message to him. I must not write to him myself according to the horrid:old agreement and I do so much want him to know what a beautiful boy our baby has grown. I went to see him yesterday at Chester. I had been unable to go for a long time. He is a really lovely baby now; he would take a prize at a baby show, and he was such a miserable little specimen that I thought Jack was disappointed in him, and that is why he fell out of love with me. Now he is the dearest little fellow in the world; all smiles and kisses for me, and I cannot do without him any longer. I am going to have him here, now I have a house of my own, and to have Jack's baby will be almost as good as having Jack. I stayed all day with him, and came away cursing Jack all the way home, though that is nothing fresh. I do that all day, and sometimes all night. I am now going to church to curse him there." Mrs Bulcock was then called, and gave cor- roborative evidence 0 Mr Madden proceedod to cross-examine her and started by asking if she was a widow before Mr Bulcock married her. Mr F. J. Gamlin said that counsel only wanted to throw ink and mud, and he objected. He advised Mrs Bulcock to decline to answer any questions excepting as to the assault. It was nothing more than vulgar abuse. Counsel said that when there was one man and two women in a case it was hard to get at the truth, and he wanted to test the witness as to her credibility. Mrs Bulcock's Evidence. Mrs Bulcock was then questioned, but she declined to say what she was when in Calcutta, where she was several times, whether she was keeping a boarding house or was a barmaid, whether her name was once Mrs Bertram, and whether she was interested in a case of assault where Lieutenant King and Mr Trotter were fined for assaulting a Mr Lowe also whether it was stated by a witness in the case that she was known as Mrs Belc. and that she had sent two bullies to attack the man. She admitted that she was the widow of Mr Harry Belc. Town Clerk of West Hartlepool. She declined to answer whether there were any divorce proceedings going on, and whether a letter handed in by counsel was in her handwriting. She declined to say whether she had written a letter to a Mr Fulton, and that it commenced Dearie," and ended 'Sweetheart." She declined to answer whether she knew Mr Fulton was a married man. Mrs Delaville had to prove that Mr Bul- cock had promised to marry her. She had seen the deed and knew everything about her husband's relations with defendant. She knew that Mr Bulcock did not fight the case, and, added the witness, Mr Bulcock is my husband, I do not think you should ask me these questions." Proceeding further the witness said that defendant had said she would speak to Mr Bulcock at all cost, and she could not place much reliance on what defendant said when she told her in witness's mother's house that she would tell a lie to Jesus Christ. Counsel observed that it did not matter to whom a lie was told. It was a lie nevertheless, This remark provoked a roar of laughter in court, and Mr Gamlin said he was really ashamed that a Rhyl audience should make light of such observa- tions. He was surprised at the morality of those present. In conclusion, the witness siid that she did not strike defendant, nor did she see her bleeding. John Williams, carter, said when Mr and Mrs Bulcock came up to where defendant was she be- haved in an excited manner, tormenting com- plainant to stop. Cross-examined Witness thought defendant was half crazy. Mrs Mary Jones, Kilnocy, Gwespyr, said she saw defendant jump into complainant's arms like a tiger. Cross-examined She thought defendant was acting in fun. Mr Madden submitted that there was no case for him to answer, but after consulting with his colleagues in private the Chairman said the majority of the Bench were of the contrary opinion. After an interval for luncheon Mr Gamlin said he proposed to conclude his case by calling com- plainant's brother, Mr W Bulcock, J.P., who stated that on September 1st the complainant came to him at the quarries and told him that defendant was persecuting him again. He went down with complainant, and saw the woman. She was in a fearfully excited state, and as pale as death. She was not satisfied with perse- cuting complainant, but had practically persecuted him in front of his own door. He told her it was time she was examined as to the state of her mind, and that if she did not go away he would have her removed. 0 Cross-examined Through this woman's perse- cution of innocent people witness had lost practically all the friends he had. Mr Madden's Defenoe. Mr Madden, in the course of a spirited and eloquent speech on behalf of his client, said that the exhibition of the Bulcocks one after the other was a most shameful one. Here was a poor little creature who, having been betrayed by one of them, was left with a child on her hands, and whom they had sought to tie down within the limits of a certain agreement, by which she was to subsist on a wretched HId per week, so long as she did not go near complainant, or molest him, or approach him when he was in the society of his friends, or let them know the crime he had com- mitted upon her while her husband was alive. What sort of creature was it who asked the Bench to protect him by insisting that the evidence in this case should be confined to what happened on September 1st only ? As to what happened on September 1st it all amounted to the question which of the parties was telling the truth. He had endeavoured to test Mrs Bulcock's credibility as a witness, but what had been the attitute of the prosecution ? Not a word must be said against her, whatever might be said about Mrs Delaville; the history of her life' in Calcutta must not be revealed. Would any honest person, man or woman, be afraid to answer any question as to any incident in his or her career. Referring to the deed, the terms of which they had tried Ito make out as having been broken by Mrs Delaville, Mr Madden went on to ask the Bench to see how complainant had kept his part of the agreement. She was to have access to the child every week and he was to apprise her from time to time as to its health. But except on one occasion when they went to Chester together to see the child, not once had he taken the trouble to let her know how the child wa.s getting on. He would also point out to the Bench how com- plainant took this poor girl away from her home and stayed with her here and there in North Wales, and told herjthat a few words said ovar them hy a priest were of no consequence, and that they could be man and wife without any such formula, until he deluded her intojthe belief that they really were man and wife. Then came the time when he threw her over, when a deed was entered into between them a day or two before his marriage to another lady, whose charms no one could deny, Mrs Delaville would go into the witness box and tell the Bench that by agreeing to the deed she had sacrificed everything in the interest of peace. She had kept to the terms of the deed, but com- plainant had not, and as a consequence, and because she could not obtain satisfaction either from the complainant or his brother or complainant's solicitor-the last named having treated her with contempt by returning her letters unopened-she ventured on to the public road in order to have a word or two with complainant about the child. Mrs Delaville would also inform the Bench that so far from assaulting anyone herself was imme- diately dragged down by complainant's wife, and left alone on the road. Mrs Delaville had let these people off cheaply as it was, and they wanted to get off more cheaply still but even if the Bench should eome to the conclusion that she was guilty of an assault a trivial assault-they were not. obliged to convict, and he asked them not to assist in robbing this poor woman of the benefit of the f25 and the paltry 10s. per week by convicting her. Mrs Delaville was prepared to swear that it was an abominable lie to say that she was not faithful to complainant while she was his mistress. She was his alone, and used as such, though she was not paid for. Yet how much lower could she possibly fall than she had done ? Mrs Delaville's Evidence. Mrs Delaville, having been sworn, stated that about the time at which the child already referred to was born—which event took place in Chester- she and complainant were practically living together as man and wife. They visited many places together in North Wales. Some time after the birth of the child she agreed, however, under a deed, to separate from him, and by that agree- ment he was to pay her 10s a week for three years and make himself responsible for the maintenance of the child until it attained the age of 16 years. The child was left at Chester in the care of some people of the name of Jeffreys, but she always iutended taking it herself as soon as she could do so. The locality in which the child was living was not to her liking, being the resort of Italian organ grinders. It was about the end of last

Advertising

Advertising

----THE Representation of…

Better than Money in the ISavings…

FIFTEEN BUNS FOR ld.

Advertising

-----u--.,..----Proposed Fire…

----.-----Presentation of…

Advertising

----------Visitors at Prestatyn.

[No title]

Advertising

Extraordinary Assault Case.