HOW To GET RID OF A WIFE.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 269, 19 August 1872, Page 3

HOW To GET RID OF A WIFE.

At the Melbourne D.strict Court lately, Bernard King was summoned for neglecting to provide his wife, Matilda Virginia King, with adequate means of support, and to show cause why an order should not l>e made against him for her support. Mr McKean, for the wife, stated that the defendant was an opub nt merchant tailor in Gollins-street, and that up to four and a .ialf years ago lie had resided with liis wife at Maryborough. He was two or three times bankrupt, and. after being bankrupt about four years and a half ago, lie had his wife arrested as a lunatic, and sent to the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum, her hallucination being, it was alleged, that lie bad tried to poison her. She bad remained in the Asylum ever since, until two or three weeks ago, when a Mr West, who bad known the couple at Maryborough, acting from generous motives, applied to Judge Molesworth for her release. She was released on bonds for her good behaviour being entered into by Mr West and another person. She was not really mad, Mr McKean said, and was not treated as a lunatic at the asylum, being allowed to do as she pieasea so long as she stoppi dat the asylum. Before she was sent to the asylum, the defendant had been paying her, for her maintenance at Maryborough, £1 a week for eleven months, and within a month of the expiration of the term for which he was to pay this £1 a week, he had her, as before stated, scut to the asylum, where be bad only to pay 7s 6d a week for her support, instead of £1 as before, when she was at iiherty. Mr McKean continued that her husband had only visited her once, when lie wished her to go up country ; that he had come to Melbourne, where be became a prosperous man, and that he was now living in opulent circumstances at Emerald bill, keeping a woman instead of supporting bis wife. The wife was put into the box, and gave evidence in support of Mr McKean’s statement. She also said, with reference to the alleged madness, that she bad believed that she suffered from tlie effects of strychnine, and that sh> hail experienced symptoms of poisoning t>y strychnine. Judging of things by her husband’s conduct since, she would not change her views now, and she still believed that she had at that time suffered from the effects of that poison. Mr Call, P.M., comment' d upon the defendant’s conduct in going only once to see bis wife, and said that he ougt to lie glad to see that his wife, who was an educated lady, had recovered so much as to lie able to l n ave the asylum, and should have dune all in bis power to make ln r comfortable. The defendant was ordered to find one surety ic £SO that lie would pay his wife 25s a week, and £2 2s costs. The spectators in the Court sympathised with the wife’s case so loudly once or twioe that Mr Call threatened to have the Court cleared. This case seems to indicate that it is not difficult to obtain the admission of persons into the Yarra Bead—as patients.— Australasian.