From the Greenwich and Deptford Chronicle and the Woolwich Gazette, Saturday, 4 January, 1910.

HUSBAND AND WIFE. Police Court Application.

MAGISTRATE SAYS "RATHER SOON TO SEPARATE."

At the Woolwich Police Court on Wednesday, before Mr. Hutton, John Bushell, licensee of the "White Horse," Woolwich Road, Charlton, was summoned for assaulting Julie Josephine Bushell, his wife, and for persistent cruelty.

Painful disagreements between a Charlton husband and wife were related to Mr. Hutton at Woolwich Police Court on Wednesday afternoon.

John Buahell, licensee of the "White Horse," Woolwich Road, Charlton, was summoned for assaulting Julie Josephine Bushell, his wife, and for persistent cruelty.

The parties were married on 19th April last, and Mr. Hutton remarked "Rather soon to separate."

Mr. Storry Dean, barrister, said they had only been married six weeks when defendant struck his wife in the bar with his clenched fist knocking her down. He promised that nothing of the kind should occur again, and his wife continued to live with him. In July he knocked her town again, however, and went on treating her unkindly at times.

On October 30th, he took hold of her arm and, pressing it back in a very painful manner, threatened to break it. Complainant was very fond of her husband, and she still continued to live with him, but in November he knocked her down twice and kicked her once.

The day after he struck her twice and, having drawn himself a bottle of Bass, put it to the highly improper use of throwing it over her. Defendant was very fastidious about his meals. He demanded everything to be hot, but, when detained by press of business he found his food cold, he would fly into a temper.

Once, his wife was so frightened when he stayed out until a meal was not quite so hot as he liked it, that she went for a long tram ride to get out of his way. When she returned she found the door was bolted against her, and she had to go to the house of some friends. At one o’clock her husband came after her, and wanted her to go home. She went at once, and on the way home he struck her, so that she made a complaint to a constable. Defendant then strode on ahead and locked her out again.

Mr. Dean urged that these acts constituted persistent cruelty, and she should not be compelled to live with him again. If an amicable arrangement could be come to, even at that hour, she would accept it, but she felt she could not live with defendant any longer.

BLACK EYE AND BRUISED ARM.

Complainant, giving evidence in support of counsel's statement, said the first assault produced a black eye, and that a upon her arm hurt her so much that she had not got quite bitter from it yet.

She was his second wife, and there were children of the first marriage.

She left her husband, but went back for some things, and eventually agreed to stay. The reconciliation came about through a friend, who said they were spoiling both their lives. Defendant would not speak for some time, and then he said "What does she want? Does she want me to go on my knees to her?" She said she did not want that, but wanted him to speak calmly and coolly, and say what he meant to do. After a while he began his conduct again. On one occasion he had gone out, and she had kept his dinner warm for him. When he came back he threw the food up the stairs and told her to get him another dinner. She cooked some fish, and that went on the fire. The night she was locked out one of the barmaids tried to open the door for her, but could not because it was padlocked. The next day defendant sent the barmaid away. When he had struck her in the street and locked her out again, she had to walk about until five in the morning. She became ill through a cold she caught, and when she got better went away to stay with a sister.

Mr. Hatton:- Since you have been married, how many times has he struck you?

Complainant:- Five or six times.

Mr. Hatton:- How many times hare you had a black eye?

Complainant:- Twice.

In cross-examination, by Mr. George Clinch, complainant said she was a barmaid before she was married to defendant. She had never asked him for money but ones or twice, and she did not complain of any meanness in that respect. She did once break one or two glasses, but that was to frighten her husband.

The Motor Car Ride.

Complainant related an incident of a motor ride. Her brother-in-law, who has a public house in the Strand, came to see them, and as he stayed late, asked her and the defendant to accompanying him home in his motor, so that there would be no trouble between him and his wife. They went, starting at 1 in the morning. After seeing him home to protect him, as the magistrate suggested, complainant and her husband took a walk round Covent Garden, and then returned home, arriving at Charlton about 5 o'clock.

Mr. Hutton asked if they had any rum and milk, which, he understood, was a very popular drink in Covent Garden.

Compliant replied they did not, but she had some coffee, and she believed her husband put some whiskey in it to warm her up. It was not true, as Mr. Clinch had suggested, that she was in the habit of getting drunk. Once she did go to bed with her clothes on, but that was because she had a bad cold, and, her husband having locked the door, she could not get any other cloths.

Dr. Berry, of 588, Woolwich Road, Charlton, called by Mr. Dean, said he was called in on the day when complainant went to bed in her clothes. She was the worst for drink. He asked that she should be undressed, because he had been called as she had complained of internal pains, but she replied that she would be alright in the morning.

Mr. Dean:- Did she look as though she had been wandering about in the streets from 1 o'clock in the morning to 5?

Dr. Berry:- She did not. I should be surprised to hear she had been doing that,

Locked Out.

Mrs. Bushel was recalled and was asked by Mr. Clinch whether she ever locked her husband in the bedroom. Her reply was that she did not, but he locked himself in and lost the key; he found it next morning on the mat.

Mr. Clinch:- Have you, in the presence of two men, threatened to murder your husband?

Complainant:- No.

Mr. Clinch:- Have you not thrown a number of glasses at your husband in the presence of customers?

Compliant:- I have not. I threw some glasses on the floor when he beat me.

Mr. Clinch:- Is it not a fact that when your husband pushed you and you would admit he did push you, it was always because you got drunk?

Compliant:- No, it is not. It is my husband who takes too much drink.

Mr. Clinch:- Have you stated since the summons you issued that you took it out on the impulse of the moment?

Compliant:- I have.

Mr. Clinch:- Did you not write to him and suggest that he had better take the matter out of the solicitor's hands?

Complainant:- I wanted it settled out of court.

Mr. Clinch:- You thought the lawyers had better be out of it?

Complainant:- No. What the solicitors do for me, I pay them for.

Mr. Clinch put in a telegram she sent to her husband, and asked as to words, "no interference" in it.

Complainant expressed the opinion that these words were inserted by her sister.

At this stage, Mr. Hutton adjourned the case until January 17th, at 3 p.m, observing he thought it might be settled by that time.