WIVES v. HUSBANDS.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2610, 29 June 1871, Page 3

WIVES v. HUSBANDS.

Two cases of gross brutality, in which the wives were the plaintiffs, came before the District Court this afternoon, and in both cases a horrible state of things, it is .alleged, exists. The first case was that of Dixoq v. Dixon, in which the plaiqtjff Wfts a very pretty young yvpjnan, with golden hair and fair complexion, and the defendant a sharebroker, late of Ballarat. Dixon, it appears, was in the habit of thrashing his wife unmercifully, and was arrested this morning off Queenscliff, as the New Zealand vessel was going through “ the rip" on a charge of wife desertion. He had thirty sovereigns in his possession, and had, it is said, lately been basking in other smiles beside those of Ms lawful helpmate.' Mrs. Dixon was married in 1861 to her husband, who then a butcher in Geelong. They hqd lived unhappily, and he bent this had conduct up to the present time. In 1862 he went to New Zealand, having' previously placed her in lodgings. In 1863 she found him and lived with him until 1869, when, it is alleged, he became acquainted with a young lady there. This acquaintance was continued, and his wife becoming very ill, came over to Victoria, and subseqmntly went to EJqgljyid, with her husband's consent, qu a visit. When she came bapk iq May, she learnt that the father of the young lady, and the young lady herself, a Miss Proud, were in Victoria, and living together “a very happy family,” Mrs Dixon became very much annoyed at this state of things, as she bad no money, and Mr Dixon was watching over the interests of Miss Proud, and 1.10,000 which her father lad left her, when he died lately. During the time that the parties were waiting in court, a pretty little scene occurred during the adjournment for lunch, in which Mr Dixon embraced Mrs D,, and besought her to withdraw the case. Mr lluigan called the defendant a “blackguard, and a miscreant” in court, and said he wished hia poor wife to institute a divorce suit against him, and he (the counsel) would conduct it himself. The matter was ultimately disposed of by Mr Call ordering the plaintiff to pay 15s per week for his wife’s support,— Age.