Person:Clara Ward (3)

Between about 1908 and at least 1915 (and possibly as late as 1929), Lizzie lived with Ernest Kempson, who was convicted at least twice of assaulting her.

1. ↑ Births index, in General Register Office. England and Wales Civil Registration. (London: General Register Office).

   b. Clara Lizzie WARD, March Quarter 1877, Luton Registration District, Volume 3b, page 463, mother's maiden name Prudden

2. ↑ England. 1881 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands: . (
   Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom:
   The National Archives (abbreviated TNA), formerly the UK General Register Office.)
   Class RG11; Piece 1648; Folio 107; Page 22, 3 Apr 1881.

   Address: 18 Bridge Street, Luton, Bedfordshire
   Richard Ward, head, married, male, 48 [1832/3], Tailor, b. Barton, Bedfordshire
   Eliza Ward, wife, married, female, 42 [1838/9], Sewer Straw Hat, b. Hexton, Hertfordshire
   S. Edwin Ward, son, married, male, 21 [1859/60], Blocker, b. Hexton, Hertfordshire
   Horace Ward, son, unmarried, 17 [1863/4], Laborer, b. Barton, Bedfordshire
   Emily Ward, wife to Edwin, married, female, 20 [1860/1], Sewer, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
   Albert Ward, son of head, unmarried, male, 15 [1865/6], Laborer, b. Barton, Bedfordshire
   Florence Ward, daughter of head, unmarried, female, 13 [1867/8], Scholar, b. Barton, Bedfordshire
   Minnie Ward, daughter, unmarried, female, 11 [1869/70], Scholar, Scholar, b. Greenfield, Bedfordshire
   Lizzie Ward, daughter, unmarried, female, 4 [1876/7], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
   Rose Bunyan, boarder, unmarried, female, 18 [1862/3], Sewer Straw Hat, b. Luton, Bedfordshire

3. ↑ England. 1891 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. (
   Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom:
   The National Archives (abbreviated TNA), formerly the UK General Register Office.)
   Class RG12; Piece 1274; Folio 136; Page 17, 5 Apr 1891.

   Address: 120 Wellington Street, Luton, Bedfordshire
   Richard Ward, head, married, male, 58 [1832/3], Tailor, neither employed nor unemployed, b. Barton, Bedfordshire
   Eliza Ward, wife, married, female, 54 [1836/7], Straw Hat Sewer, employed, b. Hexton, Hertfordshire
   Minnie Ward, daughter, single, female, 21 [1869/70], Straw Hat Machinist, employed, b. Greenfield, Bedfordshire
   Lizzie Ward, daughter, single, female, 15 [1875/6], Straw Hat Finisher, employed, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
   Henry Parsons, widower, male, 59 [1831/2], Straw Mason, employed, b. Luton, Bedfordshire

4. ↑ England. England. 1901 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. (
   Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom:
   The National Archives (abbreviated TNA), formerly the UK General Register Office.)
   Class RG13; Piece 1518; Folio 49; Page 49, 31 Mar 1901.

   Address: 19 Charles Street, Luton, Bedfordshire
   2 rooms occupied
   Harry Burgess, head, single, male, 24 [1876/7], General Labouer, Worker, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
   Clara L. Hockley, boarder, married, female, 24 [1876/7], Straw Hat Machinist, worker at home, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
   Victor H. Hockley, male, 8mos [1900], b. Luton, Bedfordshire

5. ↑ England. 1911 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. (Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom: The National Archives (abbreviated TNA), (formerly the UK General Register Office.))
   Class RG14; Piece 8995; Schedule 313, 2 Apr 1911.

   Address: 87 New Town Street, Luton, Bedfordshire
   Four rooms occupied
   Lizzie Hockley, head, female, 33 [1877/8], married 16 years, three children born, one died, Straw Hat Machinist, worker - at home, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
   Bertie Ward Hockley, son, male, 10 [1900/1], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
   Ernest Kempson, boarder, male, 34 [1876/7], single, General Hawker, own a/c, b. Luton, Bedfordshire

6.   Luton News and Bedfordshire Chronicle
   Page 2, 30 Sep 1897.

   THE LUTON POLICE COURTS
   BOROUGH SESSIONS.-WEDNESDAY.
   Bedford the Mayor (Alderman A. Hucklesby), Mr. J. Higgins, Mr. S. Bird, Mr. W.T. Lye, Mr H.O. Williams, Mr. R.S. Tomson, and Mr. E. Oakley
   ...
   DOMESTIC INFELICITY.
   William Hockley, of Albert-road, was summoned by his wife, Lizzie, of 28, New-street, who applied for a maintenance order under the Married Women's Act, 1895, against him. From the evidence it appeared that a maintenance order had been made in January 1896, but was allowed to lapse, hence these proceedings were taken.
   Mr. Holt (Messrs. Neve & Beck) appeared for complainant, and Mr. H.W. Lathom for defendant.
   Before the opening of the case, the Mayor inquired if it could not be settled instead of having to go into the disagreeable facts, but the advocates thought not, and therefore
   Mr. Holt addressed the Bench. He said it seemed that on August 19th the defendant came home to his wife, who asked him for same money in order to provide her any money, and in answer to her request he absolutely refused and hinted that if she wanted any she must go on the streets for it. The defendant, after going up-stairs, went out, and said, "I am off now, and you won't see any more of me: if I am here any longer with you it will mean murder." On the evening of the same day Mrs. Hockley went to her husband in Albert-road, and again asked him for some money, and also if he was going to live with her again, and he said he was not going back any more. On the Wednesday following, defendant went to the house, broke open the door and window, and removed all the furniture. Mrs. Hockley took the house until the following Saturday, and then went home to her mother's. The Bench, added Mr. Holt, made an order about two years for 7s. 6d. per week. There was one child who was now about three years old, and he asked that something should be allowed for the child.
   Lizzie Hockley then went in the box, and in reply to Mr. Holt said on August 19th her husband came home at dinner time, and she asked him for some coppers to get some dinner. In reply he said if she wanted any money she would have to go on the streets for it. He went upstairs and fetched all the things down. Afterwards she saw him at his brother's in Albert-road, and he refused to give her anything or come back to her again. On August 25th, when she returned from taking her child up to the Children's Home, she found that the house had been broken into and all the things taken out, and on Saturday she went home to her mother's. When the Bench made a separation order about two years ago her husband was earning about 30s. per week.
   In the course of a lengthy cross-examination by Mr. Lathom, witness denied that she had neglected the child, that she had come home late at night, or that she had been drunk. Her husband struck her on the face on July 26th when she asked him for money. He had also struck her on several occasions. She denied that on the 17th or 19th of August she threw a tin of fish about in her brother-in-law's shop. The door of their house had been left unlocked, so tat her husband could have got in if he had wanted. Her mother-in-law had the child for two or three days, and she let her stay under her care because it was better cared for, and she had no money. She denied that on Monday, "the last day of the fair," she assaulted her husband in Melson-street.
   By the Bench: It was not her wish that the child should be taken to its grandmother's.
   Mr. Lathom, for the defence, submitted that there were grounds for complaints on both sides. He was sorry to say it, but Mrs. Hockley was frequently the worse for drink, and on several dates in July did not get home until 11 or 12 o'clock at night. The child was left running about in the street, and defendant had spoken to two members of the police force about it and asked what he should do. He took the child up to his mother's house where it was better cared for, because his wife stayed away from home. She swore he threated her and he swore she threatened him. On August 17th Mrs. Hockley went to her brother-in-law's shop and damaged the stock by throwing a tin of fish about. Her husband had often been to the house but found it locked, and so broke in and took his things away. On Monday week, continued Mr. Lathom, she went up to defendant and struck and threatened him. She also tore his coat while three men stood by and urged on Mrs. Hockley by saying "Go it, Liz," and she did.
   The defendant being sworn, said h had wandered about at night on different dates with the child in his arms trying to find his wife. He often found the child in the street, and one night he spoke to two policemen about it. One Tuesday he was looking for his "missus' all over the place." He proceeded to corroborate the statement that he was locked out, and he went home "scores of times" to try and get it. He denied that he had deserted his wife. On Monday, the 20th inst., his wife saw him in Church-street and pulled his pipe out of his mouth and struck him in the face. They might have been, he added, as happy as any two in Luton. He had "tried her all roads." On the Monday she went away he slept with the child, dressed him himself, and took him on his round as none of his friends would have been up.
   In cross-examination by Mr. Holt, defendant denied that he had said he would murder her, as he suffered too much with his heart for that. He had never struck her for she had been his master for over four years. He persisted that his wife struck him in Melson-street, and all that time he stood still. "If I had have struck her" added the defendant, "I should have been some where else." He had been in the habit of paying her 14s., per week, and admitted that he got 15s., a week and as much fish as he could eat.
   The Mayor: You deliberately swear you gave her 14s. every week and that you earned 15s., you swear? - Yes.
   You understand what you are saying. And that you pay for your clothes out of a shilling a week. - Yes.
   As to food, suggested by Mr. Holt, defendant said he never had any "grub" at home.
   Mrs. Amy Hockley, mother of the defendant, was called to speak as to the condition of the child. Mrs. Hockley said the child was in a filthy state and she proceeded to give further particulars.
   Cross-examined by Mr. Holt, she admitted that she was not over-friendly with her daughter-in-law. She too had experience in the management of children, for she had had fourteen.
   The Complainant was re-called and said she would not consent to give up the child, she would rather suffer death.
   The Mayor said the case was one full of painful circumstances and the Bench would make an order for the payment of 5s. weekly. In regard to the child, said Mr. Hucklesby, it had the sympathy of the Bench, and he suggested to the mother that she should look well after it.
   Mr. Holt applied for the costs, and the Bench made an order for the same, the advocate's fee, however, being refused.

7.   Luton Times and Advertiser
   Page 7, 14 Jun 1907.

   Luton Borough Sessions.
   WEDNESDAY JUNE 12th.
   Before the Mayor (Alderman E. Oakley), Mr. R.S. Tomson, and Mr. H.O. Williams.
   ...
   MRS. HOCKLEY GETS THREE MONTHS FOR IMPUDENT THEFT.
   ELIZABETH HOCKLEY, married woman, 92, Langley-road, living apart from her husband, was brought up in custody charged with stealing £3 0s 6d., on June 1st, the monies of Arthur John Turney.
   Mrs. Caroline Maud Turney, wife of the prosecutor, stated that her husband lived at No. 71, Guildford-street, and was a straw hat manufacturer carrying on business in Williamson-street. The prisoner had been in their employ as an outworker for just over three weeks. Accused came to their place in the name of "Mrs. Ward," but they had discovered that that was not her real name, she being a Mrs. Hockley. On June 1st the prisoner brought her work into the warehouse about 12 o'clock, and witness paid her from a box in the desk. She (witness) had occasion to go through to the block-house, but she was not there a minute before she thought that prisoner, being left alone in the warehouse, might take some of the silk ribbons, or other material that was lying about. She never for a moment thought about the money left in the desk. She immediately returned to the warehouse, and noticed that "Mrs. Ward" looked very white. Being suspicious, witness looked at the money box, and being absolutely certain that at least a sovereign was missing, she asked prisoner what she had been doing, at the same time accusing her of stealing the money. The woman denied it, and witness asked her to turn out her pockets, but they were all in holes, and contained nothing. She sent for her husband, and on going through the books the ascertained that £3 10s., all but a few coppers, was missing from the cash box. Witness asked prisoner if she would consent to being searched. She replied, "Not here"; but witness's husband agreeing to leave the room, she proceeded to search the prisoner. Mrs. Hockley then pulled down her stocking, and the stolen money, amounting to £3 9s. 6d., was found there.
   Prisoner had no questions to ask, and said she was very sorry, also emphasising the fact that she handed the money back.
   Prosecutor gave similar evidence.
   Detective Smith stated that in consequence of information received he proceeded to prisoner's house that morning and arrested her on a charge of stealing the money in question. Her mother said, "Liz, what made you take it?" and prisoner replied, "I didn't know what I was doing at the time. I didn't take the money away; they had it back again."
   Prisoner, on now being formally charged and asked to plead, said she was not guilty to taking the money away.
   The Clerk: But in the eyes of the law you are. If you put that money in your stocking to secrete it, you are, in the eyes of the law, guilty of stealing it.
   Prisoner: I was in drink at the time, and didn't know what I was doing.
   The Clerk: Well, do you please guilty or not guilty?
   Prisoner (after a pause): Guilty. I am very sorry.
   The Chief Constable stated that last January prisoner was before the Court on a charge of stealing plait from a gateway in Princess-street. The case wa very suspicious, but the Bench discharged the accused with a caution.
   The Mayor said he remembered the case very well. It was very suspicious, but magistrates on that occasion gave prisoner the benefit of the doubt.
   Accused was now sentenced to three months with hard labour.
   Prisoner, on hearing the decision of the Bench, went into hysterics, and had to be quickly taken out of Court.

8.   Luton Times and Advertiser
   Page 2, 7 Jan 1910.

   Luton Borough Sessions.
   WEDNESDAY, JAN. 5th.
   Before Mr. R.S. Tomson (in the chair), Mr. E. Oakley, Mr. F.J. Brown, Mr. E.A. Cumberland, and Mr. G. Ordish.
   ...
   MRS. HOCKLEY ONCE MORE.
   CLARA ELIZABETH HOCKLEY, married woman, 87 New Town-street, was summoned for stealing a piece of bacon, value 3s. 6d. on January 1st.
   Mrs. Clara Jane Olney, the prosecutrix, who keeps a small provision shop at the corner of Ashton-road and Hibbert-street, said that she was sitting in her living room at one o'clock on the date in question when she saw Mrs. Hockley come into the shop. When witness went in to serve the woman, she missed a piece of bacon.
   Asked if she had seen it, defendant persisted in saying she had not. Witness said she sent for the police, but in the meantime Mrs. Hockley took the piece of bacon from under her apron, and handed it over. Defendant said it was the man she lived with that made her do it; she also asked forgiveness, and offered to pay for it, but witness declined to accept payment. Defendant left the shop before the constable arrived.
   Defendant went into the box, and declared that she was innocent. She explained that as she entered Mrs. Olney's shop she found lying on the footpath a small piece of bacon, which seemed to have been "mawed" by a cat. She picked it up and put it under her apron. As soon as Mrs. Olney mentioned having missed a piece of meat she (Mrs. Hockley) produced the piece she picked up outside the shop. It was not the same piece as produced in Court that day. Defendant strenuously denied that she asked prosecutrix to forgive her or that she offered to pay for the meat.
   The Bench decided to convict.
   A previous conviction was put in.
   Defendant said she hoped that what she had already suffered for was not going to be brought up against her again.
   The Chairman replied that unfortunately the fact that she had been previously convicted of theft made it difficult for the magistrates to treat her leniently.
   Defendant was sentenced to 21 days with hard labour.

9.   'Luton Times and Advertiser
   Page 6, 31 May 1912.

   LUTON BOROUGH SESSIONS.
   THURSDAY, MAY 30TH.
   Bedford Mr. G. Warren (in the chair) and Mr. A. Attwood.
   ALLEGED SERIOUS ASSAULT.
   ERNEST KEMPSON, of 87, New Town-street, was charged with assaulting and beating Lizzie Hockley on May 25th.
   The complainant, whose eyes were shockingly discoloured and practically closed, told the Bench that the alleged assault occurred about 10.30 on Saturday night. She and the defendant had been together about four years. As soon as she got in Kempson gave her a blow, and she did not know where she was. The gate was fastened, and there was no one to help her until she cried out, "Murder!" A man named Smith came down and banged the gate open. She did not remember how she managed to get out.
   Defendant: Were you intoxicated? - No.
   Have you ever given evidence before? - Yes.
   Didn't the Coroner tell you that you were telling lies? - That's nothing to do with this case.
   The defendant also questioned her as to whether she sent a man named Clifton after him, and whether Clifton gave him a black eye, but she said she knew nothing about that.
   Defendant: Are you bruised all over where you have been chucking yourself about in drink? - No.
   The case was adjourned until Wednesday in order to allow both parties to get witnesses, Kempson being detained in custody.

10.   Luton Times and Advertiser
    Page 2, 7 Jun 1912.

    Luton Man's Brutality.
    WOMAN KICKED ABOUT "LIKE A FOOTBALL."
    "I CAN'T STAND IT ANY LONGER."
    With her eyes terribly discoloured and almost closed, a Luton woman told the Luton Borough magistrates on Wednesday a pitiful story of how she was assaulted by ERNEST KEMPSON, of New Town-street, on May 27th.
    The complainant was Lizzie Hockley, who said she had been living with Kempson for four years. On the day in question he visited two public-houses in Park-street, and witness asked him to come home. He said he was coming, and she then proceeded home. The defendant, however, must have gone round an ally and got home first, and when she went through the gate, she received a heavy blow on her head, but she could not make out where it came from. She looked up and saw Kempson lying in wait for her. She had no chance to get away before he had her on the ground and was kicking her about like a football. She could only give one shriek when he kicked her on the jaw. The neighbours came out to se what was the matter, but no one could help, because he had got her against the gate. At last a man named Smith, who must have climbed the wall, came and helped her, and the neighbours got her out as best they could. She did not remember anything after this, and when she came round she found herself in a house three doors away. She thought everything was quiet, and said she had better get in now. When she got into the house she found that the glass of her lamp was missing, that having been done so that she could get no light at all. She went upstairs as best she could, and found Kempson lying on the bed. She had hardly got into the room before he pounced on her again. She had no chance to get downstairs, and she did not know when she was because she could not see. On Tuesday morning, she went downstairs as best she could and lay down on the couch. He could see the condition she was in, as blood was coming from her left temple. He did not make any answer when she spoke to him, but went to the cupboard, and took the 4s. 6d. which she had placed there for rent.
    In cross-examination, she further complained that the defendant always took her money that she earned. He did not earn more than 6s. a week, and spent more than he earned.
    Defendant: Do you smoke "fags"? - No.
    The Clerk: What does it matter if she does.
    The witness also told the Bench that this was not the first time he had done this, only she had looked over it. Three weeks ago she went down to a dentist, and because she put her other clothes on, he tore everything she had got off her and they had to go to the old clothes stores for her. It did not matter what she got to wear, she did not have the chance to keep them, because he did not want her to look like other people. She had put up with it as long as she could, and she could not stand it any longer.
    Defendant: Have you ever given evidence before? - I might have done.
    Have you ever been told by the Coroner that you were tilling wilful untruths? - No.
    Do you remember a fire in Langley-road, when a child was burned to death? - No.
    Kempson: You are a wilful story-teller.
    In a long story, Kempson denied the allegations in toto, and said that the woman's condition was owing to her throwing herself about while she was drunk. He also said that she came to him with a knife, and he told her to put it down, as she had used a knife before to a young man named Pope.
    The defendant was sentenced to a month's hard labour, and as he was led away he called out excitedly to he magistrates, "Do you call yourselves gentlemen?"

11.   Luton Times and Advertiser
    Page 8, 8 Oct 1915.

    A DISREPUTABLE FELLOW. - Ernest Kempson, of 114, New Town-street, was remanded in custody for a week by the Borough Bench on Wednesday, on a charge of assaulting Lizzie Hockley, a woman with whom he lives, on October 2nd. The defendant's conduct and language in Court was most unseemly.

12.   Luton Times and Advertiser
    Page 8, 15 Oct 1915.

    A Sordid Story.
    "Living in Vice and Misery."
    A sordid story was unfolded a Luton Borough Session on Wednesday, when Ernest Kempson, of Luton, was summoned for assaulting Elizabeth Hockley on Oct. 2nd. He was previously summoned last Wednesday, but his condition and behaviour were such that he was remanded in custody for a week. He now pleaded not guilty.
    Mrs. Hockley, who admitted she had been living with the defendant, said that about 10.30 on the morning in question he came in as she was cleaning the room and told her she could clear out as he had someone to take her place. In his passion he took up a knife and threatened to run it into her if she did not clear off. He then put the knife on the table and started knocking her about. A young man then came in the front door, and she made her escape out at the back.
    Asked why she continued to live with Kempson, complainant said she had left him several times, but wherever she went he found out where she was lodging and came and kicked up a row, so the people dare not have her there.
    Defendant made a host of allegations in the course of his cross-examination, and declared that she summoned him through jealousy and not for assault. When complainant told him he had brought very little money into the home and had hardly averaged 3d. a week, demanded, "What work have you done besides smoking 'fags' and drinking beer?" The Chairman told him that was nothing to do with the assulat, and defendant then went into the box and denied the charge on oath. He described the woman as the "biggest liar in Luton," but the Clerk remarked, "You see, the magistrates know something about both of you."
    "That's quite right, you know something about me," admitted the defendant, "but her character is quite as good as mine, and worse perhaps."
    When he got back into the dock, Kempson told the woman that she was worse than any beast in the field.
    The Chairman (Mr. R.S. Tomson) remarked that from what they both said it was a most disgraceful state of things the way they were living. The defendant would be bound over the in the sum of £5 to keep the peace for six months, and would have to pay 5s. 6d. costs. The Chairman also told Mrs. Hockley that it would be a very good thing if she left the town entirely. She was living in here in misery and vice, and she said herself that she wanted to get away from the man.