LYONS v. HUNTER.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 7, Issue 379, 24 May 1866, Page 1

LYONS v. HUNTER.

The following report is copied from the Dunedin Evening Star : la the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Edward Lyons sued Doctor Alexander Hunter for the sum of £5 10s, fur board aud lodging, &c., supplied to his wife. Mr Macassey appeared for the plaintiff, and the lion. James Pendergast, instructed by Mr G. W. Harvey, appeared fur the defendant. Mr Macassey stated the facts of the case at great length, and in so doing referred to the position of both parties from the date of their marriage up to the present time. To Victorians their domestic disagreements have long since become notorious, and so far as our space will permit we give the plaintiff’s case as repre l seated by his solicitor:— Mr and Mrs Hunter were married at Edinburgh in the year 1844, when Dr Hunter, feeling the want of sufficient practice to enable him to support his wife, the competition among the faculty iu that city being then so keen, emigrated with her consent to Sydney, and from thence went to Melbourne, In the year 1852 Mrs Hunter rejoined her husband in Melbourne, but upon her arrival found that he bad formed an improper intimacy with a Mrs Lockhart, who was at the time installed as mistress of his house. Mrs Hunter naturally protested against this, person’s presence, and thereupon a misunderstanding arose, which was followed by words, and finally led to blows. She then received such ill treatment at his hands as to cause a separation in the year 1852. They subsequently became reconciled but in consequence of the ill treatment she had received, which Mrs Lockhart assisted in inflicting, they again separated. On one occasion, when residing at Brighton, in Victoria, Mrs Hunter had been confined to a room, with her hands and feet bound to a bed in it, on the plea that she was of unsound mind ; and on another occasion, after having separated from her husband, and taken lodgingsnearMelbourne,she was forcibly abducted by some men, hired by him for the purpose On various occasions he appeared at the police courts in Melbourne, charged with different acts of cruelty towards her, and repeatedly had been bound over to keep the peace. On one occasion, when sued by her for maintenance, an arrangement was effected by which she should be paid the sum of £4 weekly for her support. This amount was subsequently reduced to £2 10s; but upon his departure to England, in the year 1861, such payments ceased altogether. He next appeared iu the Divorce Court, where it was decreed that he should pay his wife the sum of £8 per week alimony, and he had paid her some £l3O, but there remained due under that decree a balance of £242. In consequence of his having reported that she

was of unsound mind, she had visited several medical men in Melbourne, including Drs. Fades, IfHa, Black, Thomas and others, and after undergoing an examination by them they had declared their opinion that she was perfectly sane, Mrs Hunter admitted that the present claim was correct and that the various articles had been supplied at her request. Ou behalf of the defendant, Mr Prendergast severely cross-examined Mrs Hunter, but she adhered to all the material statements made on behalf of the plaintiff. She had been assured by the defendant that he was still willing to receive her into his house; but she refused, as she considered that her life and liberty would be iu danger if she again lived with him. The defence was, that Mrs Hunter was not justified in leaving her husband’s house, and therefore he was not responsible for any debts contracted without his sanction. Dr Hunter was examined at considerable length ; he totally denied having ever committed any acts of cruelty towards his wife, and expressed himself as being of opinion that his wife was insane, and states that a number of the faculty in Meibourned, who bad examined her at his instance, were also of a similar opinion. The Magistrate considered that the weight of evidence went to prove that Mrs Hunter had received improper treatment from her husband, and she was therefore justified in leaving his home, and such being the case she had a right to contract debts for any necessaries she might require. Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the sum of £5 11s and costs. Mr Harvey immediately applied for leave to appeal, which the Magistrate granted.