Yesterday (Friday) at the Maryport Police Court-before Mr J Cockton (chairman), Mr J Williamson, Mr J Maughan and Mr T Carey- Joseph Williams railway accountant, summoned his wife, Elizabeth Williams, for being an habitual drunkard, and applied for an order against her under the Summary Jurisdiction ( Married Woman's) Act, 1895, and the Licensing Act 1902.

Mr J Hewetson who appeared for the plaintiff, said it was such a painful case that he would ask whether it could be taken privately.
The Clerk (Mr Hobson) said it was a public court , and they had no power to deal with it.
Mr Hewetson said he believed it was the first cause that had been brought into court under the fifth section of the Licensing Act. He might say that Mr Williams had for years suffered the greatest calamity that could possibly fall upon a married man, as his wife was an habitual drunkard. What he had suffered nobody knew. Mr Williams had been married 24 years and had three children. It was about seven years since he first noticed anything wrong, and he had tried every possible means in his power to prevent intoxicating liqour being obtained by his wife, and had notified most of the people in Maryport not to supply her. He asked that an order of separation be made. The children were nearly of full age and would go with the father.
Joseph Williams said he had been married nearly 24 years. It was about seven years since he had notisted the drunkenness of his wife. He had done everything in his power to stop her drinking. For a while he allowed drink to come to the house , as by doctor;s orders, he had to take it himself. However when he found it was taking such a hold upon her he stopped it coming into the house and had not taken any himself . He had also tried to prevent her from taking it. Her general conduct while under the influence of drinking was very dangerous. He had been attacked upon several occasions. Quite recently she had threatened to put an end to him with a carving knife. She had thrown Knives at him and had also thrown his against a door and had blackened his eye. She damaged windows, furniture and other property most seriously and he had been put to considerable cost .
When ever she got money she got drink.
The Chairman: In fact she has lost all moral responsibility? - Plaintiff Yes. Containing, witness said she had assaulted his family very seriously at different times. Eighteen months ago he had to take his daughter to the doctors. He had consulted both Dr Proud and Dr Little and they advised his to do his best and have her taken away to some inebriates home as that was the only cure.
The Chairman: if it could be done it would be most advisable.
Plaintiff said he was in terror of his wife. Only last week she had chased him out of the house with a large carving knife. He had to run out of the house to save himself.
Inspector Norman bore out what Mr Williams had said. She is a dangerous dipsomaniac, and had caused a great deal of trouble. He had been called both to the house in Curzon Street and Fleming Square. He had found her mad drunk and tearing up her hat and damaging furniture. From his personal experience he had no hesitation in saying she was a dangerous dipsomaniac.
Mr Hewetson said Mr Williams was prepared to pay 12s 6d a week towards her maintenance.
The Bench retired, and upon their return into court the Chairman said they granted the application for separation. In order that eh wife may have the opportunity to retrieve her self the made an order of £1 per week and plaintiff pay the costs. It was a most painful case, and the Bench were exceedingly sorry for the plaintiff seeing that he was in a tearful dilemma owing to the doings of his wife