Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benefits of Legal Desertion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Benefits of Legal Desertion?

    My GGrandfathers sister brought a case against her husband for desertion in 1896 which was dismissed by the 'Bench' as they held there was no legal desertion.

    Does anyone know what benefit it would have been to her if she had succeded in her claim? Surely if she had wanted to remarry she would still have needed to go through the divorce process?

    She was a seamstress and her husband a stationary engine driver so not exactly 'high society' :D

    Many thanks
    Avatar....My darling mum, Irene June Robinson nee Pearson 1931-2019.

    'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations.

  • #2
    Were there any children?

    Perhaps for a maintainance claim?

    Comment


    • #3
      Margaret

      One, but she was 30 and married by then.

      Thanks
      Avatar....My darling mum, Irene June Robinson nee Pearson 1931-2019.

      'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations.

      Comment


      • #4
        Perhaps she thought he should have paid to support her, the wife. Maybe she couldn't earn enough to support herself, illness perhaps?

        I'm only guessing. Have you tried googling the phrase?

        Comment


        • #5
          He probably ran off with another woman and she was a tad miffed. ;):D

          Comment


          • #6
            Margaret

            In letters dated 1867 he swore it was his 'love of woman' but no one in particular :D

            In the censuses 1871 through to 1901 he is alone so maybe he was telling the truth!

            Maybe she was after some financial support but she was still working in the 1901.....I think you are right and I will never know for sure.

            Guess what....Google brings up my post!!!! Plus some recent cases so I will have a look tomorrow to see how it could apply to 1896.

            Thanks for your ideas
            Avatar....My darling mum, Irene June Robinson nee Pearson 1931-2019.

            'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations.

            Comment


            • #7
              I guess she was still working because she didn't have any financial support. It was rather shocking for married women to have to work (unless of course they were working class, in which case it was OK).
              ~ with love from Little Nell~
              Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi, Chris

                Not sure if this helps, but I think that then, whilst a husband could obtain a divorce on the grounds of his wife's adultery, for a wife to obtain a divorce she had to prove another offence in addition to the adultery - eg cruelty, incest or desertion.
                Last edited by Muggins in Sussex; 27-03-08, 06:53.
                Joan died in July 2020.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't think that desertion was a grounds for divorce then. Much more likely that she was trying to get a bit more money. The state would always want to put the responsibility on the husband where they could and save the costs of maintenance.

                  At a similar period, on that 19thc newspaper site I've found a man inserting a notice to say her would not be responsible for his wife's debts, followed a few weeks later by his arrest. He was made to pay the costs of his wife being in the workhouse.
                  Phoenix - with charred feathers
                  Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thank you Muggins and Phoenix

                    It looks as if she may have wanted to remarry, which was my original guess, and being from a God fearing family wouldn't take the poor man's option of living together or bigamy.

                    After a bit of background reading on divorce I found this on the NA site...

                    " Until 1923 a wife had to prove her husband’s adultery, along with some other offence, to gain a divorce. This could be cruelty, or desertion for two years or more. She could also divorce him on the grounds of incestuous adultery; where he committed adultery with a woman that he could not legally have married, if his wife were dead."

                    Well they had been seperated just on 30 years so I suppose her claim failed on the basis that she couldn't prove adultery and he didn't admit to it. **UPDATE** Confused myself there, adultery wasn't part of the desertion claim :o So it must have failed for another reason :(

                    If she did want to remarry and have a settled old age how sad that she didn't achieve it.

                    Thanks to everyone for their help.
                    Last edited by Chris in Sussex; 27-03-08, 14:04.
                    Avatar....My darling mum, Irene June Robinson nee Pearson 1931-2019.

                    'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Chris -

                      Two more thoughts
                      -
                      1. It could be that the "other offence" had to be proved by the criminal courts before the civil courts would allow a divorce petition to be presented.

                      2. There was an Act called The Married Women (Maintenance in case of Separation) Act 1886 - afraid I don't really know much about it though

                      Hopefully someone else may know more than I!
                      Joan died in July 2020.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Although I don't KNOW, I wonder if "time was of the essence" for proving desertion.

                        30 years seems a long time to wait to complain of desertion. Possibly the courts took the view that this was connivance - which was strictly forbidden as far as getting a divorce was concerned - one party had to have acted without the approval and consent of the other for a case to be successful.

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Muggins
                          Thank you for the info...More reading for me

                          OC
                          I expect that would be the equivilant of the 'out of time' which is used today in bringing actions to court.

                          If I had been her I certainly wouldn't have waited 30 years to bring an action! Maybe she thought he would see the error of his ways and return, only giving up hope when she found happiness or a possible secure future with another......Old romantic that I am :D

                          Thanks again to everyone for their input.
                          Avatar....My darling mum, Irene June Robinson nee Pearson 1931-2019.

                          'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X