Liver Covered With Snuff
Very rarely, I find a case which contains affidavits from both wife and husband, rather than just the wife's testimony. However, this bit of good fortune gives us a more holistic view of the case, so we don't have to rely solely on assuming that the wife is testifying truthfully about the state of the marriage and her financial affairs.
In the case of Annie and Christopher Bellew Richards (1881), the double affidavits only make matters more complicated, because they directly contradict each other on almost every point. Our only somewhat objective source here are the comments of the judge in this case, who found Christopher less believable than Annie under cross-examination.
Regardless of the truth - what's amazing and useful about this case?
We begin, in both accounts, with a somewhat whirlwind courtship and marriage in Brussels - whether due to Annie's insistence (C's version) or Christopher's (A's version). Soon after the marriage Annie found a love letter from a young unmarried lady to her husband. She went to discuss the issue with the young lady and her parents and discovered that the woman in question believed C to be unmarried and about to propose to her - and that they had been courting for a year! C is confronted and gets angry and mildly abusive; they begin living in separate bedrooms, both paid for by C. Meanwhile C. (according to Annie) embezzles 1800 pounds from the sale of one of Annie's real estate properties - she lets furnished lodgings. According to C. that money came from his own income.
According to C. he is a prosperous and respected architect and surveyor; according to A, he was unemployed at the time of their marriage, having previously made 80 pounds a year as a builder (much less than her income), and then has used her money to set up as a "Job Master" - essentially, a building contractor/construction temp agency. According to external documents, C. was at some point employed as a "Draughtsman for the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers."
Somewhere in this period, A. claims that C. gives her an STD. C. produces numerous doctor's letters that he claims prove that he does not have an STD, and that if Annie has one, which he doesn't believe, he certainly didn't give it to her.
Now we get to the juicy bits. According to A., C at this point is trying to drive her out of their home, so that he can claim that she abandoned him, rather than vice versa, and thus not have to provide any alimony or financial support. A. is determined to stick tight. However, this becomes harder when Christopher begins psychologically tormenting her. He tells her that "he'll make the house too hot for her to stay" and allegedly bets his friends that he can get her to leave within 3 months.
While C. is required to provide food for his wife, it doesn't have to be good food. Annie claims, "“He provided to me only such food as he thought proper and sometimes it was of a most loathsome nature for instance on one occasion he brought into the Room where I was sitting some liver covered with snuff for me to eat for my dinner and on another occasion he brought home some common fat or flare and said to me 'Eat that and be damned to you; I am not going to feed you on Legs of Mutton.'...I sometimes had only a Bloater [smoked herring] for my dinner.”
According to Annie, C. then repeatedly, often when drunk, begins threatening to throw her into the canal at the bottom of their garden. She is afraid for her life. In his affidavit, Christopher responds to this accusation by saying, "I deny that I threatened to throw my wife into the canal as alleged; such an act was physically impossible for a wall and a high hedge of about 10 ft high were at the bottom of the garden and a towing path of about 12 or 14 ft between them and the canal. “ The judge finds this statement somewhat unconvincing. After one night where Christopher repeatedly slams open and shut his bedroom door shouting, "I'm damned if I don't do it tonight!" Annie finally packs her bags and leaves the house in the morning.
For the nine years since, they have been functionally separated, although Annie argues it should count as 12 years, counting the time from when they last regularly shared a bedroom. Having recently come into an unexpected inheritance from her late brother, Annie wants to keep that money safe and away from C and thus is now suddenly suing for a formal divorce and the protection of her earnings. There are, thankfully, no children involved. Despite the somewhat dubious timing of all of this, the judge agrees to uphold the order.
In the case of Annie and Christopher Bellew Richards (1881), the double affidavits only make matters more complicated, because they directly contradict each other on almost every point. Our only somewhat objective source here are the comments of the judge in this case, who found Christopher less believable than Annie under cross-examination.
Regardless of the truth - what's amazing and useful about this case?
We begin, in both accounts, with a somewhat whirlwind courtship and marriage in Brussels - whether due to Annie's insistence (C's version) or Christopher's (A's version). Soon after the marriage Annie found a love letter from a young unmarried lady to her husband. She went to discuss the issue with the young lady and her parents and discovered that the woman in question believed C to be unmarried and about to propose to her - and that they had been courting for a year! C is confronted and gets angry and mildly abusive; they begin living in separate bedrooms, both paid for by C. Meanwhile C. (according to Annie) embezzles 1800 pounds from the sale of one of Annie's real estate properties - she lets furnished lodgings. According to C. that money came from his own income.
According to C. he is a prosperous and respected architect and surveyor; according to A, he was unemployed at the time of their marriage, having previously made 80 pounds a year as a builder (much less than her income), and then has used her money to set up as a "Job Master" - essentially, a building contractor/construction temp agency. According to external documents, C. was at some point employed as a "Draughtsman for the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers."
Somewhere in this period, A. claims that C. gives her an STD. C. produces numerous doctor's letters that he claims prove that he does not have an STD, and that if Annie has one, which he doesn't believe, he certainly didn't give it to her.
Now we get to the juicy bits. According to A., C at this point is trying to drive her out of their home, so that he can claim that she abandoned him, rather than vice versa, and thus not have to provide any alimony or financial support. A. is determined to stick tight. However, this becomes harder when Christopher begins psychologically tormenting her. He tells her that "he'll make the house too hot for her to stay" and allegedly bets his friends that he can get her to leave within 3 months.
While C. is required to provide food for his wife, it doesn't have to be good food. Annie claims, "“He provided to me only such food as he thought proper and sometimes it was of a most loathsome nature for instance on one occasion he brought into the Room where I was sitting some liver covered with snuff for me to eat for my dinner and on another occasion he brought home some common fat or flare and said to me 'Eat that and be damned to you; I am not going to feed you on Legs of Mutton.'...I sometimes had only a Bloater [smoked herring] for my dinner.”
According to Annie, C. then repeatedly, often when drunk, begins threatening to throw her into the canal at the bottom of their garden. She is afraid for her life. In his affidavit, Christopher responds to this accusation by saying, "I deny that I threatened to throw my wife into the canal as alleged; such an act was physically impossible for a wall and a high hedge of about 10 ft high were at the bottom of the garden and a towing path of about 12 or 14 ft between them and the canal. “ The judge finds this statement somewhat unconvincing. After one night where Christopher repeatedly slams open and shut his bedroom door shouting, "I'm damned if I don't do it tonight!" Annie finally packs her bags and leaves the house in the morning.
For the nine years since, they have been functionally separated, although Annie argues it should count as 12 years, counting the time from when they last regularly shared a bedroom. Having recently come into an unexpected inheritance from her late brother, Annie wants to keep that money safe and away from C and thus is now suddenly suing for a formal divorce and the protection of her earnings. There are, thankfully, no children involved. Despite the somewhat dubious timing of all of this, the judge agrees to uphold the order.
Comments
Post a Comment