Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 20 May 1911
Young Husbands Buttons
Mexborough Wives Housekeeping Capacities
George Brunyee Russell, farm servant, Brigg, was charged with deserting his wife. Mr J Baddiley appeared for complainant.
Mary Russell, who resides with her parents at 20 Church St, Mexborough said the defendant was her husband. They were married on February 12, 1910. There was one child of the marriage named George Brunyee Russell, aged 11 months. She lived with her husband along with his people for some time, and from Wath they removed to Devonshire St, Rotherham, and set up as a milk dealer’s. This was in January. The business however failed and was sold up.
Her husband went in search of work, and she went to her parents. Her husband sent her a message from Tinsley to say that he was coming over to see her, but he never turned up. On 10 April she got to know where her husband was living, she went along with her brother to Brigg with the direct purpose of seeing him and asking what he was going to do. A conversation took place between her husband and witness of brother. Witness had had nothing from her husband since January 22.
Defendant (to his wife): How many times did I go to bed and not find a bed made? – Not many times.
How many times a week? – Not more than once.
How many times have I done without buttons on my clothes? – No answer. Didn’t I ask you if you could so, and you said no? – No, I said yes.
Did I not get a servant to do the work because you wouldn’t work? – No, I had to go out with the milk.
Mr Baddeley (to witness): With reference to the mill, did not you will have to go out with the milk because your husband was too lazy to do it? – Yes sir.
George Duke, brother of the complainant, said he went to Brigg to the Anchor Inn, and complained to the defendant about his wife and child. Defendant said he was not going to work at Wath or Mexborough, or anywhere else for 18/- a week. If he had money he would go to Canada.
Defendant said when he married his wife, it seemed as if he had married the whole family. There was his mother-in-law’s sponging on him. Whenever she came she took something away with her. His mother gave him money to set up a milk business, and it failed because there were so many folks to keep. He was willing to pay maintenance, but he was not going to live with his wife again.
Fanny Russell, mother of the defendant, said she paid £100 for the business and £14 for a horse. She thought her son was too young to have the business in his own name, so she put it in her name. He was only 20 years of age now. Her son sent for her, and told how things were going, that he had just paid the milk bill which was £25. He had no shirt to his back, and what clothes he had were minus buttons. His wife had a new hat and a new fall. Witness immediately sold the business for £20 and now she had had to sell their home up.
Mr Baddiley: Did not the same milk business support man previously with a family of eight? – Yes.
A separation order was made and the husband was ordered to pay the costs and five shillings per week towards the maintenance of his wife and child, the wife to have the custody of the child.