Father and Son Flu Deaths

New Road, Linslade c.1900 [Z1432/3/13/1/4]

Saturday 2nd November 1918: A Linslade father and son died from influenza within hours of each other on Friday. William Robinson, aged 42, was taken ill about three weeks ago, but returned to his work as a carter before he had fully recovered and suffered a relapse. Meanwhile his son, William Leslie Robinson, had also contracted the disease; he died just a few hours before his father. The family’s youngest child is also gravely ill, and his mother has had to take to her bed due to the stress of constant nursing. A fund to relieve the immediate needs of the family has been opened.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 5th November 1918

Landlord Refuses to Rent House to War Widow

24 Cardiff Road, Luton, with two children at the gate, 1910 [Z1306/75/10/7]

Saturday 28th September 1918: A soldier’s widow has written to the Luton News describing the difficulty she has encountered in trying to find accommodation for herself and her two children. She signs herself “the insulted one”, and it is clear that her situation reflects disgracefully on landlords who refuse to rent property to the widows of those who have given their lives in the service of their country:

“I am the widow of a soldier who was killed in France little more than a year ago. Since his death I have put my furniture in store and have been living with my friends. But there is nothing like a home of your own, however kind one’s friends may be, and lately I have been trying to find a house so that I could have a place to myself once more. On Saturday last I heard of a house to let which would meet my need, so I called on one of the most reputed house agents in Luton and made application for it. Having stated my reason for calling, the agent asked, “Where does your husband work?” I relied that he did not work anywhere. He died in France. “Oh,” said the agent “That’s enough: I shouldn’t let my property to a soldiers’ widow!”  I produced my former rent book to prove my respectability, but he would not even look at it. He then asked, “Where do you work?”  I told him. He then said “If you can get your master to take the house, and he cares to sublet it to you, he can do so, but I shouldn’t care to let it to you!”  I leave it to your readers to judge the quality of the person who can talk like this while he pursues his business and enjoys the comforts of his home unmolested only because brave men have sacrificed their lives and the comfort of their dependents. But what I want to know is this: Am I and my two children, and every other woman and her children, to be debarred from having a home of their own simply because our husbands have fallen in the country’s cause? If so, our husband’s death is our disgrace, and instead of dying to make a bad world better they have made it worse for those they loved most. I do not deny the right of any landlord to let his property to whom he will, neither do I object to him trying to secure himself in his rent; but when the sole ground of his refusal is that one is a solder’s widow, it is surely time to protest, not only for oneself, but for the thousands of others who hear a like reproach.”

Source: Luton News, 26th September 1918

A Twin Problem

Bedford Board of Guardians 1907 [Z160/933]

Friday 9th August 1918: At yesterday’s meeting of the Bedford Board of Guardians an impasse was reached over the case of twin babies who are currently inmates in the Workhouse. The twins were born to the wife of a soldier who had recently returned from France, but were not his children. He said that his wife had been assaulted, but no proceedings were taken against the man. She had been receiving the Army allowance for the babies, but the husband had agreed to repay this to the Guardians of the Poor. He appeared before the Board and stated that he would not have the children in his home as they were not his; if he had them there could be no happiness in the home. He was informed that it did not matter whose children they were, as the mother’s husband he would be responsible for them and the babies would be handed over to him during the next week. The man insisted he would not take them.

Source: Bedfordshire Times, 9th August 1918

Soldier Fails to Provide for his Wife

Former Court House, Wing Road, Linslade (2008)

Saturday 6th July 1918: A former soldier has been charged at Linslade with abandoning his wife and three children, leaving them to be provided for by the Leighton Buzzard Poor Law Union. Reginald Arthur Noke, now of Birmingham but formerly of Wing, pleaded not guilty. The court was told that Noke had met with his wife at Northampton on 29th April and had given her £13 out of a cheque for £16 which had come for him from America; with this money she had paid off her debts. The Chaplain of Northampton Gaol had arranged for Noke to start work in the town, but he did not do so. As his wife heard nothing more from him she had to seek relief from the Poor Law Guardians, who had paid her four guineas. In the meantime Noke’s war pension had been reviewed, and he was now entitled to a balance of £40.

Noke said he had now got a job as a driver on the Birmingham Tramways at 25 shillings per week. He expected to pass out on Sunday as a qualified driver and would then earn £3 a week. If his wife would come to Birmingham he would provide for her there; if not, then he would pay her an allowance. He had written to the War Office and made over his pension to his children, and he was also willing to hand over the £40 due to him. The magistrates granted him bail while enquiries were made about the outstanding pension.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 9th July 1918

Bedford Soldier Killed in Air Raid

Felixtowe letter card 1917 [AU41/3/6]

Monday 23rd July 1917: News has reached Bedford that Private Alfred John Alder of 65, Gwyn Street was one of eight soldiers of the 3rd Battalion of the Bedfordshire Regiment killed in an air raid at Landguard Camp, Felixstowe yesterday morning. Private Alder joined the reserve battalion of the Bedfordshire Regiment at the beginning of the war. After performing various home duties he was sent to France seven months ago and was wounded at Loos at Easter. After recovering at Bradford Hospital he spent a few days leave at Bedford before returning to his unit ten days ago. Last week his daughter received a letter from him telling her that the shrapnel embedded in his shoulder had shifted towards his back, but he was “going on very well”.

The tragedy of Private Alder’s death is all the greater as his wife died in October 1915, three days after giving birth to their youngest child; their nine children are now left orphans. After her mother’s death their eldest daughter Dorothy, then aged 16, left her job in service to look after her brothers and sisters while their father was serving his country. The youngest daughter, Ethel, who is now one year and nine months old, has been cared for by relatives, but Dorothy has been responsible for the other seven and has kept their home spic and span. Her grandfather is reported as saying that “Dorothy has been a good girl; she has kept the home going, and looked after the children well”. The three oldest boys are now at work, and the four younger children are still at school.

Two of the other victims of the air raid are also from Bedfordshire: Private George Smith is from Upper Gravenhurst, and Private Albert Wilton from Henlow.

Source: Bedfordshire Standard 27th July 1917

Fraudulent Claim for Separation Allowance

Men working at Balmforth factory, c.1910-20 [Z1411/1/3G]

Saturday 21st July 1917: William Saunders of Wood Street, Luton has appeared today at the Luton Police Court on a charge of illegally obtaining an allowance from the Bedfordshire Territorial Association. The proceedings were brought on the instructions of the War Office, who had decided that these cases were becoming too frequent and should therefore be heard in open Court. William Saunders son was called up at the beginning of the war, having previously worked for Messrs Balmforth’s engineering firm at Luton. No claim for a separation allowance had been made until last April, when the father declared to the Territorial Force Association that the son had paid him 17 shillings a week. The son’s former employers said it was “absolutely untrue” that his average weekly earnings were 22 shillings; they were only 10 shillings and 9 pence as he was only a labourer. The prosecution claimed it was “a barefaced attempt” to obtain an allowance to which Mr. Saunders knew he was not entitled.

In Mr. Saunders’ defence it was stated that although his wages were only 10 shillings and 9 pence, the son was able to earn a good deal more by helping the gang with whom he was working – these men would each given him a shilling, so that his total earnings came to at least 22 shillings. Mr. Saunders had only written on the application form the amount that his son paid him at home. The Bench were not convinced by this explanation. The Chairman said they considered it a serious attempt to defraud. However, as it was the first case of the kind brought before the Court they would treat it with a degree of leniency. William Saunders was fined 40 shillings with the alternative of a month’s imprisonment.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer 31st July 1917

The Sutton Family of Luton

British Gelatine Works, Luton 1906 [Z210/145]

Monday 9th July 1917: An old soldier from Luton has no less than seven sons and two step-sons serving in the Army. Alfred F. Sutton, who now works at the British Gelatine Works, served for 31 years in the 5th (Royal Irish) Lancers, including 19 years abroad in Egypt, India and South Africa. All seven of his sons joined their father’s old regiment. The longest serving is the eldest, Frederick, who has been with the Colours for 19 years and has been awarded the Military Medal. His brother William has served for nearly 17 years and is the only one of the brothers who has been wounded while serving in France; he suffered a slight wound from which he recovered at a base hospital. The younger brothers, Thomas, Sidney, Ernest, Archie and John, have served for between eight and twelve years. Mr Sutton also has two step-sons who joined up at the beginning of the war. Private Alfred Fountain of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers came home last week from hospital, where he had been recovering from a bullet wound in the thigh received last February; he has been recommended for the Distinguished Conduct Medal. His brother, Driver Thomas Fountain, is with the 13th Middlesex Regiment.

Source: Luton News 12th July 1917

Wife Claims Maintenance from Ex-Soldier

Washing day for soldiers billeted in Luton, August 1914 [Z1306/75/16/5]

Thursday 28th June 1917: A case has been heard at the Luton Borough Court in which Edith S. Osborn, a young wife with two infants, claimed maintenance arrears from her husband Walter Henry Osborn. She had married Osborn while he was billeted in Luton at the beginning of the war. He was wounded in action at Ypres and discharged from the army. There were allegations that he had been very cruel to his wife and she was granted a separation order with payment of fifteen shillings a week. Mr. Osborn is now in London, and sent to the Police Court Missionary (Mr. Hawkes) a letter complaining of his poverty-stricken state, saying he did not know when he would get his next pension allowance. He admitted that he received 35 shillings a week, but said he “could not have got about unless a gentleman had given him a pair of trousers” and that his boots were in holes. His wife told the magistrates that her father, who was a naval pensioner was keeping her. The Mayor was reluctant to send her husband to prison and adjourned the case in the hope that Mr. Hawkes would be able to do something for the Mrs. Osborn.

Source: Luton News, 28th June 1917

Leighton Buzzard Father Beats Daughter

Vandyke Road, Leighton Buzzard 1914 [Z1306/72/13/1]

Monday 12th June 1916: William Mitchell, a labourer of Long Row, Vandyke Road, has appeared before the magistrates at Leighton Buzzard on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to his 17 year old daughter, Rosa Ann Mitchell, on Saturday night. His wife Lily said that her husband came home at about 9 p.m. the worse for drink and accused her daughter, a munition worker at Luton, of staying out too late, although Rosa had arrived home before her father. He took off his belt and used it to strike the girl. Mrs Mitchell said he did not use the buckle end, and did not hit her daughter in the face. Police Superintendent warned her that she was contradicting statements she had made on oath and in her signed deposition. The mother then admitted that the girl had received a “mark” over one eye. She had tried to get between her husband and her daughter and had pushed the girl into the back kitchen, but Mitchell had pulled her out and struck at her with a broom stick. She had seen him strike Rosa across the head.

A doctor was sent for who came and dressed the wound on the girl’s head. She had cried all night, but her mother thought that was more because her father had been arrested than due to pain from her injury. The doctor had said she would not be fit to go back to work for a week. The girl appeared in court with a bandaged head, and wept so bitterly that she had to be removed to another room. Mr. Mitchell asked for bail, saying he did not want to lose his job and that ”I will never touch another drop of drink as long as I live after I have seen what it leads to. I am very sorry for what I did.” The magistrate refused his request and Mitchell was remanded in custody.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 13th June 1916

Luton Mayor Intervenes to Help Belgian Family

John Henry Staddon, former Mayor of Luton [Z49/261]

Saturday 12th February 1916: The Mayor of Luton himself has been involved in an errand of mercy for a distressed Belgian refugee family. He appeared at a meeting of the Luton Education Committee to explain the circumstances which had caused one of the children to come to the notice of the School Attendance Sub-Committee. The mother of the family had been ill for some weeks and the child, an eleven year old girl, had been looking after both her mother and four other little children. The father was working at Messrs. Balmforth’s until about 9.30 p.m., and when he returned home each night he cooked the next day’s food for his wife and children while the eleven year old did the housework. The mother had now been admitted to the Infirmary and the Mayor had made arrangements for a nurse to look after the children until something could be done for them.

The Committee agreed that no action would be taken and the matter would be postponed. No pressure had yet been exercised in the case, although a letter had been sent to the father calling attention to the girl’s absence from school. The Mayor pointed out that the official notice had “frightened the life out of them”. Alderman Arnold pointed out that it could be assumed that the father was earning a fair amount and despite the labour shortage it should have been possible to get someone else to look after the children so the girl could go to school. The Mayor said that one lady in the neighbourhood was so distressed by the situation that she had said she would go and live in the house and take care of the children herself if necessary.

Source: Luton News, 10th February 1916

Soldier's Family Evicted at Woburn

Leighton Street, Woburn 1908 [Z1086/10]

Monday 3rd January 1916: In an unusual case the Duke of Bedford has instructed both the prosecution and the defence solicitors when applying at the Police Court for the eviction of one of his tenants. Before the war the Duke would clearly have been in a position to evict the man and his family, but the Court now has discretion in cases where it appears that a tenant was unable to vacate a property through circumstances directly related to the war. In the light of this the Duke wished to secure a fair, legal decision in a difficult situation.

A cottage at 70, Leighton Street, Woburn was let to Mr. George Tansley in 1906 at two shillings and sixpence a week. The tenancy was tied to his employment with the local blacksmith, Mr. W.H. Marshall, and it is essential for the blacksmith’s business that his employee should live opposite the smithy. Last September Mr Tansley left to join the Army Service Corps, resulting in the closure of the smithy until a replacement for him was found in October. However, despite being given notice to quit Mrs. Tansley and the couple’s two daughters remained in the cottage. The new employee, a Mr. Manning, had initially gone home to Olney at weekends, but was now living with his family in a small cottage at Birchmoor Green which was not suitable for his needs, being almost a mile from his work. He had already threatened to leave as he was unable to get home for breakfast and struggled to get home for dinner.

Mrs. Tansley is not from Woburn, and the Duke has admitted it would be impossible for her to get another cottage in the village. The Duke's estate agent stated that he had explained the situation to Mrs. Tansley and had offered her reasonable expenses to move to any part of the country of her choice, and any legal assistance she required to defend the eviction case. While the Duke did not wish any harm to the family of a man who was serving his country, the smith's business was essential for agriculture and could not be carried out properly without the cottage. He therefore wished the magistrates to make a legal decision on the matter. After giving the matter consideration the magistrates exercised their discretion and decided that the eviction should be carried out; Mrs. Tansley was given 28 days to leave.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 8th January 1916.

Dead Baby’s Mother Gaoled for Neglect

Tuesday 14th December 1915: Mrs Nellie Selina Waterworth, the wife of a Luton soldier who was severely censured by the Coroner at the inquest into the death of her baby on 27th November has appeared at Dunstable charged with neglecting her three remaining children. Since the inquest she had moved from Luton to Dunstable and taken a house under the name of Smith. On December 8th Mr. C. Boskett, a plumber, and William Loughton, a painter, had gone to a house in Manchester Place where he saw Mrs Waterworth with her three children, Bert (aged 8), Doris (aged 5) and James (aged 3). They were sitting round the fireplace, but there was no fire. The children were poorly dressed and the youngest had no boots. Later in the day the children were running about the garden without boots in the wet and cold. There was still no fire in the house and the mother was away for some time. The children were crying. They saw no fire in the place for two days. Mr. Boskett said he would have given them fire and food, but had been told that the mother had an Army allowance. William Loughton gave the eldest boy a penny to get some cake.

A neighbour corroborated the men’s evidence and said that Mrs Waterworth left the children and when she returned swore at one of the children who was crying. Two soldiers had inquired for her saying “Do you know where a woman is that lost a baby?”  Two policemen had visited the house but nobody was at home. Later that evening she was seen in the High Street arm in arm with a soldier and was taken to the police station. The next night he visited the house and found Mrs. Waterworth washing the children, but there was no fire. Mrs Purser, the police matron, said that the children were well nourished, but very dirty and neglected. They smelt badly and were filthy, but did not have vermin. They were insufficiently clad and their condition was likely to cause them suffering. They had since been provided with clothes by the Poor Law Union. Mrs Waterworth admitted that she had been visited at home by a N.S.P.C.C. inspector and told she neglected her children. She was using the name Smith at Dunstable because she was ashamed of herself. She admitted knowing soldiers at Biscot huts, leaving her children and being in public houses with soldiers.

The Mayor sentenced Mrs Waterworth to two months’ hard labour and told her she was not only a disgrace to her sex, but to humanity, and had not the affection for her children that an animal had. The children are to be taken care of at the Luton Children’s Homes at Beech Hill.

Source: Luton Times, 17th December 1915

Harriet Reeve Murder Trial Verdict

Harriet Reeve

Tuesday 19th October 1915: For the second day running a Bedfordshire man has been on trial at the Assizes for the murder of his wife. Yesterday Henry Charles Martin was convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentenced to twelve months in gaol. Today, after a six hour trial, William Benjamin Reeve of Leighton Buzzard has been convicted of the wilful murder of his wife and has been sentenced to death. The evidence was almost identical to that given at the Police Court hearing and the inquest into Harriet Reeve's death, with the addition of Reeve’s own account of events.

Reeve was a man not in very regular employment who was in the habit of drinking rather too much. On the 5th July he had visited several public houses with a man named Thomas Major. When he returned home the worse for drink his wife was anxious to get rid of the children who were in the house and gave them money to go to the Picture Palace. Evidence was given by Private Jack Toms of the Bedfordshire Regiment, the husband of Reeve’s niece Annie. When asked whether Reeve suffered from ill-health which prevented him working Toms replied “No, I think it was laziness”. Mrs. Reeve, however, was an “industrious and sober” woman who had worked as a carpet sewer for Messrs. Aveline and Phillips. When Reeve came to Toms’ house on July 5th he heard him say “I’m going to do my old girl in tonight”, giving as his reason that she never gave him any money. When begged not to carry out this threat Reeve said his loved “his old girl”. Toms had not attached much importance to the conversation, assuming it to be the silly remarks of a drunken man.

Reeve told the court that he was a drover and labourer, who had been married for over twenty years and had lived on good terms with his wife. He was not aware that he had ever threatened his wife’s life. He admitted that on the 5th July he had had a good deal to drink. Asked about his gun he said that he had not used it for months, but it had been left loaded. The gun was peculiar in that when both barrels were loaded if the right hand barrel was fired the left hand one was also likely to go off. He could not remember any of the events of the evening his wife was killed, but he was certain he had no intention of injuring her – she was “the best friend I had got”. He did not remember how the gun and razor came to be found just outside the door, and did not have any memory of cutting his own throat with the razor. He had no recollection of telling Jack Toms he intended to “do his old girl in”; he rarely quarrelled with his wife, and had no grievance against her for not giving him money. He also had no memory of opening the drawer which contained the shot and taking out the shot flasks. He believed the gun must have gone off by accident.

In the closing speeches the prosecution said it was extremely improbably the gun could have gone off accidentally and caused Harriet Reeve such injuries. However drunk he was Reeve had clearly checked before he went home that his wife was there, and he was clearly conscious enough to take the gun from its usual place. Why else would he have cut his own throat if he was not aware he had committed a crime? He had run out of money for more drink and had grown in resentment and hostility to his wife for refusing to give him more as the day went on. The defence pointed out that there were certain discrepancies in the evidence of Jack Toms which suggested it was unreliable. Flemming, the friend of Reeve’s son, claimed to have heard Reeve threaten his wife yet young Reeve who actually lived in the house said he had never heard his father threaten his mother. There was nothing to suggest that Mrs. Reeve felt herself threatened as she had stayed seated in her chair.

The judge said that there was no evidence that Reeve was insane and drunkenness was no excuse for crime. If the jury believed Reeve’s story that the death was an accident they should find him not guilty; if they believed he did not know what he was doing, he should be found guilty but insane; the only other possible verdict was guilty of wilful murder. The jury took only twelve minutes to consider their decision before passing a unanimous verdict that he was indeed guilty of wilful murder. After spending much of the trial slumped low in his seat with his head in his hands Reeve stood unmoved while the verdict was read out. He did not reply when asked if he had anything to say as to why judgment should not be passed on him, and lowered his head while the sentence was pronounced. He swayed when the judge spoke the closing words “And may the Lord have mercy on your soul” and stood as though in a daze until the gaolers escorted him to the cells. As he left he exchanged a brief, inaudible remark with his mother who was seated in the public gallery.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 26th October 1915

Murder or Manslaughter?

Shire Hall, Bedford

Monday 18th October 1915: Gunner Henry Charles Martin of the Royal Garrison Artillery appeared at the Bedfordshire Assizes today on a charge of murdering his wife at 6 Queen Square, Luton, on October 4th. The jury was told there was no evidence of any quarrel over the weekend before Mrs. Amy Martin’s death. Their son, Charles William Martin, aged 13, said that on the Sunday they were all quite happy, although there had previously been trouble about another man. At the Whitsun bank holiday the family had visited his grandfather in Luton. His father returned home the next day but the rest of them stayed for a week. During that time he saw his mother and a soldier named Newbury kissing. When they returned to Barking there was trouble between his parents and soon after his father joined the Army. The rest of them returned to Luton where his mother continued to see Newbury. When their father visited them his mother would send himself or his brother Albert to Newbury with a letter telling him to keep away. He had heard his mother tell his father she intended to go to Australia with Newbury.

Martin told the court that he had tried to induce is wife to give up Newbury, but without success. She had moved to Queen Square from Blythe place without telling him. He threated to go the police about the use to which she was putting the house; she had burst out crying and promised to give up Newbury if Martin would return her wedding ring which she had thrown at him before she left Barking to return to Luton. A fortnight before her death she had told him she intended to go to Australia with Newbury, taking their little daughter Gracie with her. When he reprimanded her she hit him on the head with a poker. She had taken their life savings but wrote to him pleading poverty, although she was working and earning good money. When he struck her on the fateful morning he meant to hit her with his fist and forgot he had the knife in his hand. If she would only have given Newbury up he was willing to forgive her.

Medical evidence was given that the stab wound to Mrs. Martin’s neck would have taken very little force. The knife cut the jugular vein as it came out, a vein which lay almost on the surface. There was no evidence of a struggle in the bedroom and a  determined blow with the knife would have caused a much more extensive injury. Gunner Martin admitted causing the wound but said he had been driven to it. Police Inspector Janes, who had known Martin for many years, stated that the man was reputed to be a quiet, hard-working man and a respectable citizen. His wife was “a gay woman and fond of going about”.

The jury were told that the real issue was whether Martin was guilty of murder or manslaughter. The prosecution said that “provocation would be pleaded, but there was no provoking the blow struck, and provocation by word of mouth was not adequate under the circumstances to reduce the charge to one of manslaughter … It was a sordid story, but the jury must not let that turn their judgment from their duty, and under the circumstances, having regard to the absence of a struggle, and the deliberate going round the bed to strike the woman, murder was the only verdict which could be returned. The defence submitted that “at the time he committed the act he was beside himself, and tortured beyond endurance, and that under the circumstances the jury would be justified in returning a verdict that he was guilty of manslaughter only”. It was only by chance that the wound inflicted proved fatal and Martin had no intention to kill his wife. The judge pointed out a number of things which told in favour of the prisoner.

After retiring for about ten minutes the jury returned the verdict that Martin was not guilty of wilful murder, but was guilty of manslaughter under great provocation. His Lordship expressed his agreement with this verdict and was in no doubt that it was the correct conclusion. However, as “he could not countenance the notion that people might so lose their tempers under provocation that they could use the knife” Martin was sentenced to twelve months in gaol.

Source: Luton News, 21st October 1915

Henry Charles Martin to Face Murder Trial

Henry Charles Martin

9th October 1915: Yesterday’s inquest into the death of Mrs.Amy Martin ended with the verdict: “The jury find that Amy Martin died from haemorrhage caused by a blow with a knife, inflicted by her husband, Henry Charles Martin, and they consider the case one of wilful murder. We wish to add, however, that we believe the man to have received very great provocation”. Gunner Martin has now appeared at Luton police court and has been committed for trial on the charge of murder at the Beds Assizes later this month.

Evidence was given by Martin, his son Charlie, his sister Mrs. Jane Barton, and Amy Martin’s father, Edwin Plummer, to the effect that Mrs. Martin had been “carrying on” with a soldier in the Lincolnshire Regiment. Tom Newbury had been billeted at Blythe Square, Luton with Mr. Plummer. There seems little doubt but that when Mrs. Martin left Barking to stay with her father an affair began between the two, which continued after Mrs. Martin took a house of her own at Queen Square. Young Charlie said that Newbury visited the house very often and “When his mother used to go and lie down in the bedroom after doing her housework Newbury used to go with her”. While at her father’s house Mrs. Martin had been caught in a compromising position with Newbury by her brother; she had admitted sending him cigarettes and handkerchiefs.

There was some suggestion that  Martin himself had engaged in a dalliance with a girl from Ilford. Miss Sarah Annie Hampshire, aged 19, was called as a witness. She described a meeting between herself and a girlfriend and Martin and a companion on Wanstead Flats, following which he asked her to write. Miss Hampshire said she had written to Gunner Martin but received no reply. A few days later she received a letter purporting to be from Martin’s sister saying “My brother … informed me of a young lady he had … I think he thinks a great deal of you, and I hope you do of him”. Evidence was given that this letter was in fact in Mrs. Martin’s handwriting.

Martin gave evidence that there had been no trouble in their marriage until his wife met Newbury. They had visited Blythe Place at Whitsun; he stayed one day but his wife stayed for a week and after her return seemed strange. She admitted giving a missing brooch to a soldier who she eventually named as Tom Newbury. She told him she loved Newbury. He went on his knees and begged her to give him up but she refused. Following this he enlisted in the Royal Garrison Artillery. On the fatal weekend they had argued. He had intended to catch the milk train back to Stratford but did not wake in time. He made some tea with bread and butter for his wife and took it to her, still carrying the knife with which he had cut the bread. When he gave her the tea she said “I wish I could get you to drink one with some poison in it”. She threw his spurs at him, hitting him in the back. He picked up the spurs and walked round the bed. Thinking she was going to throw the cup at him he hit her with the knife still in his hand. He denied intending to stick it into her. Dr. Bell of the Bute Hospital had examined the wound after Mrs. Martin’s death and stated that it could have been made by the knife produced with very little force and was a stab wound rather than a cut.

There is no doubt that however she may have behaved towards her husband and with Tom Newbury, Mrs. Martin was an attentive mother and a good housekeeper. Her son Charlie told the court that “Father was a good father, and mother was a good mother to us”, and her house was spotless.

Source: Luton News, 14th October 1915

Luton Artilleryman Kills His Wife

Amy Martin

Tuesday 5th October 1915: An inquest opened this afternoon in Luton into the death of Mrs Amy Martin, age 32, of Queen Square. The coroner and jury heard that at 6.30 yesterday morning Mrs Martin’s husband, Henry Charles Martin approached Police Constable Hencher in Park Square and told him “I have got to come with you. I have done my wife in.” When told that this was a very serious statement to make he replied “It’s true. I stabbed her with a knife. I believe she is dead. She drove me to it.” Martin was taken to the police station and P.C. Hencher and Inspector Janes went to Church Square. There they found Mrs. Martin in a neighbour’s house. Her throat was cut and she was lying in a pool of blood. An attempt had been made to stop the bleeding by wrapping a towel around her neck. A doctor arrived and stitched the wound. She was taken to Bute Hospital, but at 9.20 a.m. she died.

The neighbour, Mrs. Fookes, stated that as her husband did not start work until 8 a.m. on Monday they were still in bed when he was woken by a scream, “Oh, Charlie!” Realising something was wrong next door he put on some clothes and ran to the back bedroom window where he saw Mrs. Martin ban on the door and fall to the ground. He and his wife rushed downstairs and found the Martins’ son Charlie trying to staunch the blood from his mother’s throat with a small pocket handkerchief. They took her in carefully, Mr. Fookes tried to stop the bleeding and his wife ran for the doctor. The boy Charlie said he was in bed when he heard his mother scream. As he ran towards the front bedroom in which his parents slept he saw his mother rush downstairs. He followed and found her lying on the ground at Mr. Fookes’ back door.

Gunner Henry Martin is stationed in Stratford with the Royal Garrison Artillery but had been home frequently, on some occasions without leave. Mrs. Martin’s Father, Edwin Plummer of 10, Blythe Place, said his daughter was a hard working girl who had lived in Luton all her life until Martin went to work at the London Scottish Foundry Ltd. in Barking, Essex about two years ago. She had worked for Messrs. Webb and Baker, the hat manufacturers, and Martin had worked at Messrs. Brown and Green’s Foundry and then the Diamond Foundry. He believed his daughter’s marriage was not a happy one. When they lived in Barking she had come home to her father for five weeks because of the abuse. Her husband drank heavily and had lost his situations at Brown and Green’s and in Barking, where his master told him he was a drunken beast. When asked if he had known Martin to strike his daughter he replied: “It has been worse than striking – the language and drink, and they have struck each other”.

The Martins have three children, aged twelve, eleven, and seven. Mr. Plummer’s loss was his third in two years; he was still in mourning having lost both his wife and son within that time. The inquest was adjourned until Friday afternoon.

Source: Luton News, 7th October 1915

Sisters At War

Ramridge End, Stopsley 1916 [Z1306/75/15/3]

Saturday 4th September 1915: The Luton Borough Court dealt with an unusual case this morning when Hilda Best, the wife of a sapper in the Royal Engineers, appeared charged with assaulting her sister, Ellen Smith. Although Smith said that she wanted to withdraw the charge the Clerk of the Court was reluctant to permit this due to the severity of the allegations – it was said that Best had grazed her sister’s face with a knife, and had also assaulted her mother who would not press any charges. It appeared to the Clerk that this was a case where the wife of a soldier was spending money received from her husband on drink, had quarrelled with her parents and made a “terrible uproar”. When questioned by the magistrate Smith began to cry and said that on behalf of her parents, her sister’s husband, and her sister herself she did not wish to say anything.

Mrs. Best said that had been living at home but was considered a lodger and nobody had spoken to her for a whole week. When she left for work on Saturday morning she had said she would not be home that night as she was staying in Stopsley with a friend. She arrived home at about 9 pm on Sunday night, only to be told that as she had been out all night her parents had written to her husband. Ellen Smith contradicted her sister, stating that her mother did not know where she was that night. Mrs. Best pointed out that she was married and did not have to ask her parents for permission. She agreed to be bound over to keep the peace towards her parents and others, but said she did not want to have anything more to do with them. When told by the Clerk that it was a shame to have such feelings towards her own parents she replied “I have had too much of it. If I have nothing whatever to do with them they can say nothing.” When told she was to pay 7s 6d costs Mrs. Best complained that her sister should pay as she took out the warrant against her. The Clerk pointed out that she was the person at fault and would have to pay the money, telling her "the sooner you get rid of that obstinate temper the better. It is your temper that has brought all this about”.

Source: Luton News, 9 September 1915