Would you believe, I found this in Trove
6 July 1908 Daily News, Perth, Western Australia
THE MOTHER-IN-LAW
SIX MONTHS WED.
Only wedded in September last and now separated after six months
of misery; Such is the pathetic history of the short married life of Mr. and Mrs
Arthur James Bobbett, the former of whom was summoned
by his wife of Richmond, England, on May 11 for persistent cruelty. Defendant’s
father manages a public-house in St. Martin's-lane, Charing Cross, London
Mr. Whiteley, who appeared for Mrs Bobbett, said even on the
honeymoon, within three days of the wedding, the husband threatened to shoot his
wife.
They were in Paris at the time. In the middle of the night the defendant
got into a violent temper and said he would shoot his wife and himself. On their
return to Richmond, where they opened a fruiterer's shop, the cruelty continued.
They went to see the defendant's father one night, and because his wife did not
eat much supper he threatened on the way back in the train to throw her and
himself out. In October he wrote a letter, and on the envelope put, “To those
whom it may concern when we are dead.” The defendant then went into the kitchen,
sharpened a table-knife, came back, and said he was going to kiss his wife. He had
the knife in his waistcoat- pocket and the complainant after a struggle got it
away from him, the servant coming in and putting an end to the scene. On
several other occasions the husband had tried to strangle his wife and it was a
question whether the defendant was altogether sane, for he got into violent
fits of passion and did not know what he was doing.
Mr. O'Connor, for the defence, called special attention to a
letter defendant had written to his wife before the separation proceedings came
to a head. It said:—'Dear Wife,- I would rather lose my life than hurt a hair
of your head. Why? Because I love you, and always have, and always shall, no matter
what happens. ... I look forward to the time when I shall hold you and give you
a kiss, and hear you say you still love me. Why can't we live happy together without
outside influence? If it was not for other people we should be as happy as two doves.
My heart is breaking for you, and I am certain it can't go on much longer.
Fancy and think of the child, and what a prospect it has in front of it. Of
course, if your love for me is dead and gone, and in its place hate, I can do
nothing but go away and try to forget, but I know I shall never do that. You
are my wife, and I love you still. Good-bye, dear. God bless and protect you
always.—Your broken-hearted; husband, Bertie.'
Defendant, on oath, denied the cruelty, and said that any trouble
that had arisen was due to the interference of his wife's relatives. While the
honeymoon was in progress the relatives tried to borrow money from his father and
himself, and his mother-in-law was always coming to their house and telling him
how to conduct his affairs. She and her daughter were always coming round, and once
actually came into his room when he was in bed, and would not leave. He had to dress
himself before them all. But for the interference
he would have lived happily with his wife, whom he still loved. Arthur Bobbett, senior of the Lemon Tree,
Charing Cross, said that on the wedding day the complainants’ mother was
regretting the marriage, saying her daughter was the mainstay of her business. The
bench decided there had been persistent cruelty, but also considerable aggravation.
Accordingly they granted a separation, with 25/- a week allowance. It would
have been more but for the relatives' interference with the couple.
