Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page





A flEXHAM "WOMAN MOBBED AT BIBEENIIEAB. SCAIffDAIXXUS DISCLOSURES. Afc the TOT rn-liall, Birkenhead, on Wednesday, before Mr Spanuell, deputy-stipendiary, Martha Etidcwes, wifei ofadoakJabourer,residingin George- street, 53irket thead, Esther Brereton were summoned for' having assaulted the sister of the former, Ann Baker, who resides iniRhosddu, Wres- axd is th e wife of an engine-driver, A cross- sumoiona had been iecned by Martha Eddowee charging Ann Baker with assault. Mr Pugh ap- peared for Edolowe-s and Brereton. The weman Baker, who ente red the witness-box wearing a deep veil, fitatad that about.axortnight ago she wrote o the husband of Martha JBddowes, her brother- n-Iaw4 aiding hÏm to .meet her at Chester. The letter was, however, not received by,him, bnt by his wife, -who wrote a fake letter" to witness, telling her to meet him at Bukerh^ad. Comprain ant went there on Tuesday eek, but instead1 of being met by her brother-in-law was mot by leer sifter with s. large crowd of people, whOiheat her, • ud threw atones and dirt at her. Mastha Ekl- 'sowes, who headed the crowd, .pashed her aloi \g < iie street, caying, "Go to the station, go .to th-e sration." Witness added that Hit was well 1r\10Wn" 1n the paper-s the abuse she received." If her -istei- had desired to know why she wanted to see her husband witness would have told her. Brer<?f on j v. aa amongst the crowd, and threw Ú all kinds of • irt" at her. Cress-examined hy Mr Pagh.—You knew prettv 1 •'oil where to find her P I did not want to meet v ter she always meets me with abr.se. Yoy .lidn'i to see her, you wanted to see her hus-Baud P 1 wasn't particular whether I saw her or i.ot. It i w;isn't the first time you came to J'irkeahe^d to see • r husband ? Yes, it was. Did yon never "u to Brighton with hirs, tafciug him from 1;is work? I never did. Didn't his wife lJ1>ct. yon in the ui coming back with him ? I d;,IIJ¡ Lr -i i: me. Did he go with y. o P Ho met us ai g rpool I was not aware of him beirig- there. A Brighton ? *&■, v\ .■ J. go to Sew Brig! ton. Whe. e did you • ? Je } ■ eat the day in Liveq-oo'. W-th who;'> ? Ji; ii.: wa.j wiili u-; 'w> ui hrt. as!; him to eomo. Dj:. ou for fc-'iu ? Iro I did— mc and my friend. Did you afterwards lend him some money ? 1 did not. Was he in the militia at Wrexham ? Yes. Did you used to go to the barracks there? -No; I went to a friend's house. Did you represent to that friend that you were his No. Didn't you meet regularly and drink together in the canteen ? I d d not. I went to a friend's house at the bar- racks. Did you meet him there ? Of course I used to see him. I did not go purposely to meet him. Did you not pass as his wife ? No. Did not his father find it out, complain of you, and tell you not to go there again ? No. The Magistrate Do you mean to say that she lived in the barracks ? Mr Pugh: :No. She used to go there night after night. The Magistrate: As a relalion, that was f!ilÏte consistent. Mr Pugh were you there con- stantly with him ? No. Do you remember some- thing taking place at your grandmother's P No. Don't you remember your grandmother sending word to your husband about something which took place between your brother-in-law and yo* ? No.' Didn't your husband pitch his bed through the window in consequence ? Not in consequence of that. Has not your sister charged you with follow- ing her husband? No. Has she not complained to you ? She did when she came to Wrexham about two months ago. She said I had her hus- band in my house. Do you mean to swear that nothing improper ever took place between her hus- band and you ? Nothing ever did. Was it not the whole talk of the neighbourhood ? I cannot say; I did not hear it. Do you mean to swear you never heard it ? I must say 1 did hear it. Do you still swear that your grandmother and two other wit- nesses did not see you and your sister's husband together ? Yes, we were together. They were drunk and quarrelsome, and I went with him away from them. In answer to the magistrate. Mr Pugh stated that Eddowes and her husband were at this time living in the same house as the Bakers. Is your husband here P No. Did he hear of this row in Birkenhead ? Yes. Did he want an explanation from you how it happened ? Yes. Did he suggest you should take out summonses? Yes. If he had not suggested it, it would never have occurred to you ? I intended to do it myself. You wrote this letter to. him ? Wrexham, Aug. 6, 1878. Dear brother,—I received your letter and was glad to hoar from you, but sorry that your foot is not better. I am coming to Chester on Friday; write by return weather you can come there. If you can come be sure dnd write and let me no weather you or no you can or not. I shall no weather to look for you or not. If yon do write for me at Thursday night, I shall be there at eleven o'clock. I saw Liss yesterday, and she spoke very civil to me. I asked her where was her husband, and she said that he had got seven days to splh and 14 days to barrocks after. I have not much news to tell you. I remain your affectionate sister. I shall expect a letter on Thursday morning. You have been very long in writing. If I don't seey you on Friday write again on Saturday. Mr Pugh: Why did you want to see him at Ches- ter r He wanted to explain about some abusive language his mother had been using towards him. Why did you not tiny that in the letter ? Because he could not read it himself. Had you been in the habit of receiving letters from Lira ? No. What do you mean by You have been very long fr writing" P He sent me 43 to get a singlet. I didn't get it. I sent him 2s back, and another 2^ in stamps. Has he been in the b^ or corresponding -t". you? No. ]etter to see whether^ llC g0s. E[arapai Was it not an ex- pensive journey for him to go to Chester ? More expense for me to come to Birkenhead than for him to go to Chester. My husband knew about it. Did not your husand turn you out of doors for not coming home in time ? No. Why did you go to an hotel to meet your brother-in-law ? That was his address. Were you astonished to see your sister ? The crowd of people. Did you run ? No. You swear you never passed as his wife in Wrex- ham? I never did. Didn't his wife catch you at the canteen together P No; at a friend's house. Did she not tell you it was a shame to take her husband away ? I didn't hear her she bawled out something. But you made yourself scarce ? No; I didn't leave the barracks till ten o'clock. This closed the cross-examination. The com- plainant stated that she had no witnesses. Mr Pugh, on behalf of the defendants, said his worship would form a pretty accurate idea of the case. Unless compelled, he did not wish to put Eddowee, the complainant's brother-in-law, into the box; but he thought the complainant richly deserved the treatment she got. Here was a woman who had the audacity to write a letter to her own sister's husband asking him to meet her at Chester. Did his worship think the complainant would ar- range for a meeting at Chester simply to talk over some abusive language alleged to be used by the mother of Eddowesf Eddowes was present, and, if necessary, he woyld put him in the box, and he would swear that the complainant was in the habit of following him -everywhere tha.t she passed _'3 his wife at Wrerbam that the matter vas reported j by his own father, and that in consequence the complainant was prohibited from going to the barracks at all. Eddowed would also prove on one occasion an improper intimacy took place between the complainant and himself at the house of her grandmother, he being in drink at the time, and that is consequence both weM turned out of the house. He (Mr Pugh) could also call three other witnesses to prove an act of mi proper intimacy between the complainant andhor brother- in-law. Under all these circumstances he was surprised at the audacity of the complainant in coming into court. He would put -Eddowes, the complainant's brother-in-law, into the box he had now come to his senses; it was a. pity he had not come to his senses long ago. Mrs Eddowes (who had taken ont a cross-sum- mons for assault against her sister, Mrs Baker) was then called. She made some statements with a view of showing that an improper intimacy had I -existed between her husband and her sister, Mri; Baker, when they lived together et Wrexham. Mrs Baker, she said, came to Birkenhead twice after her (Mrs Eddowes's) husband. On one occasion, when he did not come home, she went jn search of her husband, and found him at the railway station with her sister and another person. On another occasion, when her husband was away in the militia, she went to Wrexham barracks and com- pMined to the sergeant-major, who sent a guard to her sister's house, but he was not there. He was found in a friend's house opposite. When she went to the barracks, the officeI-s did not. believe that she was Eddowes's wife until she got his father to prove it. She had suspected her sister and her husband for two years. Mr Pugh here offered to call Eddowes to prove his intimacy with his wife's eister, Mrs Baker. The magistrate observed that if there was any- thing wrong between the parties, Eddowes was quite as bad as his sister-in-law. He was satisfied there had been an improper imtimacy—he would not say in the sense usually applied—but he would say a very incautious intimacy between the com- plainant, Mrs Baker, and her brother-in-law, Eddowes. He was convinced the intimacy had been marked by great incautiousnese, but there was no evidence of anything further having taken place. This intimacy having come to the know- ledge of Mrs Eddowes, she having obtained possession of a letter written by her sister asking her husband to meet her at Chester, it was only natural that she (Mrs Eddowes) would feel very indignant, and he was not surprised that she determined to meet her sister in the way she did. What took place on that occasion, however, was an illegal act, and, therefore, he must deal with it. All that had been stated and proved by Mr Pugh simply went in extenuation of what took place, but as an illegal act had been committed—although humanly speaking one justified as between the parties—he was bound to deal with it. He thought, however, the justice of the case would be satisfied by ordering the defendants, Mrs Eddowes and Mrs Brereton, to pay "a nominal fine of Is each, without costs. The summons against Mrs Baker would be dismissed. The decision of the magistrate in the case imme- diately became known to the crowd outside. The greatest excitement prevailed, and the lady from Wrexham, on leaving the court, was greeted with loud hooting, and cries of Here she is." To save her from a second lynching, Superintendent Clarke took her into the section room in the police office, where she remained for some time, evidently dpep in thought respecting her adventure to Birkenhead in search of her sister's husband. Ultimately a cab was procured, and Mrs Baker was taken through a backdoor in the building into Market-square. Here the crowd which was headed by Mrs Eddowes, had greatly increased in number, and as the Wrexham lady, who had to be guarded by the police, walked to the vehicle, s ie had again to submit to hooting and shouting of a most boisterous character. Onco in the cab, however, she assumed a defiant de- I meanour. shook her umbrella vigorously through j the cab window?, and having ordered lhe driver to Irive to Ii. ck Ferry, she took her departure irom Irive to Ii. ck Ferry, she took her departure irom L -irkenhead. Some of the crowd followed, but they IYl Te soon out-distanced by the cab.

--'"-"--,,, VV Ti;KXiiA?u!.…




---Hocal jSttos.