Divorce proceedings on the grounds of persistent cruelty are sadly not new, but this tale from the pages of the Eccles Journal from July 1916, tells of a case for separation with an added twist.
Mary Jane Lees, who was living on Worsley Road in Swinton, appeared at Eccles Magistrates Court to ask for a order (with maintenance payments) to allow her to separate from her collier husband George Lees.
She told the court that they had been married for 22 years.
Despite this long service, it doesn’t appear to have been particularly happy for either party.
One evening the couple exchanged “sharp words” and she threw George out of the house.
He returned with two bottles of stout, no doubt in a valiant – if typically male – attempt to smooth things over.
Sadly his gesture didn’t touch her heart, as she threw one of the bottles into the fire and he retaliated by throwing the other one at her.
She alleged in court that her beloved would often take running kicks at her in the street when they had both been out together and insult her in front of her friends.
She admitted that she had in the past taken out two court orders against George, but on each occasion she took him back “because of his bad health”.
Things started to unravel for the downtrodden Mrs Lees when she was cross examined by Mr Roe Rycroft, who was defending George in court.
She admitted that that on the night she threw him out of the house at midnight, she had taken from him £1, 17 shillings and sixpence, and then hurled a jug of boiling water in his face with the intention of scalding him.
George called a constable for help, but her temper had still not calmed down because she threatened to kill him with a poker in front of the startled police officer.
After listening to these admissions of assault the Magistrate decided to dismiss her summons against George.
Enraged at what she considered a miscarriage of justice, she ran across the courtroom and punched George in the face.
Several constables attempted to calm her down and succeeded in pulling her back to her place, but not before she gave George another crack to the head.
As can be imagined the Chairman of the Court was enraged at Mary Lees’ actions.
He wanted to fine her immediately for breaking the sanctity of his precious courtroom – but instead she was bound over for 12 months to keep the peace.
He summed up by saying that it was a pity that she taken the law into her own hands after being given every oppourtunity to “put her case forward in a peaceful manner”.
