A story of bigamy and a body in the Thames dressed in another man's clothing was told at Luton Police Court on Saturday, July 14th, 1917, when a Luton wife sought a maintenance order against her husband on the grounds of desertion.

Mr H. W. Lathom, for complainant Mrs Emma A. Radcliffe, said it was a most unusual case arising from the desertion of husband John Joseph Radcliffe 11 years previously. Radcliffe at that time was a painter and decorator in Luton, and for the first few weeks after leaving he sent her a pound a week. Then that money stopped.

About a year later the dead body of a man was taken out of the Thames. The police made contact with Mrs Radcliffe after the body was buried, with the result that the clothes were identified by her as her husband's. A photograph taken of the body she believed was that of her husband.

Who the dead man was, or how he came to have Radcliffe's clothes on, was not known, but Radcliffe took advantage of seeing newspaper reports of the inquest on himself and disappeared. His wife never saw or heard any more of him, and naturally thought he was dead.

Then, in 1915, there was a dramatic meeting in London. One of the children who had grown to manhood and was now a soldier met his father in the street in London, and as the result of inquiries if was found that the defendant had married another woman about the time he deserted his wife.

Since then had had been prosecuted at the Old Bailey for bigamy and, having entered the defence that he thought his wife to be dead, he was bound over on probation.

When he left his wife he left her in a most heartless way with five children, the youngest being only six months. Two of the boys were now in the Army, but there was still one child of 11 years dependent on Mrs Radcliffe's support and keep.

Mrs Radcliffe denied the suggestion of Mr J. E. Hazeldene, for the defendant, that before her husband left her she was very extravagant and was this that was the cause of his bankruptcy, saying that he was made a bankrupt through his own goings-on. Her father had to keep and clothe her nearly all the time she live with the defendant, and also help pay his debts.

When he went away he left one of the children nearly dead on account of his brutality. There were four children now, one having been lost in the war, and none of them contributed to her support and keep.

In the witness box, the defendant said the last time he had stood there he was bankrupt through his wife. He was now earning 10d an hour, but he was not able to get full work because he had "a dropped hand" throgh lead getting in it. If he worked a full week his earnings would be £2 1s 8d.

He had two children as the result of his second marriage, and both were in a consumptives' convalescent home at Bournemouth, while their mother was in a similar home at Brighton. He had to pay 8s a week for the children and 4s a week for their mother.

Asked if he had realised at last that he ought to help his real wife, the defendant replied that he did not. He admitted it had been about ten years since he stopped paying anything to his wife after he claimed his wife had got his the sack. He then went to Newcastle to work, and he had to eat bread out of the streets.

Told that was a very fair reward, the defendant was asked: "Aren't you a bit ashamed of yourself?" He replied : "No, I am not."

Pressed to make an offer to contribute to the support of his wife and child, the defendant pleaded that he was practically an invalid and could only afford 6s or 7s a week. For Mrs Radcliffe, Mr Lathom said he should ask for 10s a week for the wife and 2s 6d for the child.

The magistrates made an order for the payment of 10 shillings a week, plus 8s costs.

[The Luton Reporter: Monday, July 16th, 1917]