Found while surfing the net
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Talk by Kay
Very good turnout for this mornings talk. In the afternoon there were new people who were able to find their families in most of the census. All 6 computers were put to good use.
The North Coast Times took some photos, so keep a watch for the newspaper article.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
3 web sites added
Thanks to Olive I have added three web sites on the left hand list.
State Library Bookmarks. (This one will keep you busy!)
Another BOBBETT drama
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.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Found in Newspapers - my mothers aunt
Three different reports
August 1892
BOBBETT'S BACON AND
EGGS. Mrs. Arthur Bobbett, the younger, was summoned to the Westminster
Police-court yesterday, for willfully damaging some crockery belonging to Robert
Allplush coffee-house keeper, defendant
admitted the damage, and explained that her Husband would persist in taking his
meals at the coffee-shop, though she prepared his food at his home, situate
immediately opposite. She had dinner ready for him but he went to the
complainants for eggs and bacon. When had sat down, she entered, and swept the
lot off the table, The Magistrate ordered her to pay the damage and costs,
amounting to twenty-six shillings and sixpence.
Through the energetic action of Mrs. Arthur Bobbett, wife of a distinguished middle-weight boxer
and cab proprietor, a curious question of domestic ethics was discussed before
the magistrate at Westminster, the lady in question being the defendant, and Mr Robert Allplush,
coffee-house keeper, the complainant. Is a man compelled under the rules of
household felicity to ruin his digestion by eating his wife’s cookery, which he
does not like? And has a wife the right to demolish the dishes which another
cook prepares exactly to his taste? There are limits to the digestive
capabilities even of a middleweight boxer and if he prefers a ham-and-egg tea,
with bread and butter, to a banquet prepared for him by the partner of his joys
and sorrows, he is entitled to enjoy it in peace; for thank heaven ours is
still a free country. Mrs Bobbett does not think so, and when her husband disdained
the turtle her own hands had made, and sat himself down to the ham-and-egg tea
already mentioned, the irate lady bounced into the coffee shop and swept the
dishes, the teapot and the cups to the floor. The only defence Mrs Bobbett set
up was that she did not like her husband’s
preference for a coffee-shop cuisine when she rather prided herself on
her own, but she steadfastly declined to pay for the damaged ware, even
although Mr Allplush allowed the matter to stand over until he thought her
temper had gone down. Mr De Rutzen, after hearing the whole story, ordered her
to pay 26s.6d as damages and costs. But if Mr Bobbett has, after all, to
disburse the amounts represented by his wife’s tantrums it may in the long run
be cheaper to accept the domestic cookery and run the risk.
Mrs. Arthur Bobbett, the younger, was charged on a
summons, before Mr. De Rutzen, with wilfully damaging tho property of Robert Allplush,
a coffeehouse keeper. Mr. E. D. Rymer, who appeared for the Complainant, said
that Mrs. Bobbett, for some reason best known to herself, resented her husband
taking his meals away from home. On the
evening of the 6th inst. Mr. Bobbett had just sat down
in the coffee-shop to substantial fare in the shape of ham and eggs, tea, and
bread-and-butter, when Defendant bounced into tho shop, overturned the lot, and
smashed the crockery. Prosecutor, an elderly man, bore out the opening
statement of the solicitor, and stated that he waited a few days till he
thought Mrs. Bobbett’s temper might have cooled before asking her to pay the damage.
She was very insolent, and refused to do so. The Defendant said she could not
deny that she did sweep the crockery off the table in the coffee-shop. Although
she lived almost opposite, her husband would take his food in the shop. He sent
there for his breakfast, and on the day in question she had had his dinner
ready for hours, yet he walked in there for eggs and bacon. She could not
understand his preference for coffee-shop food, and felt very much annoyed at
him. Mr. De Rutzen ordered her to pay a fine, damage and costs amounting to
26s. 6d.
At least five newspapers reported on this, I can't seem to find a Robert Allplush on Find my Past!
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Friday, May 9, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)