The Shropshire Examiner and all round the Wrekin advertiser. — 1877-08-10 (Wenlock, Shropshire, England)

LNG A WIFE "FOR A LARK."  At the Manchester County Court a case has been heard in which John Wigley Fought to recover from the defendant, named Robinson, a hay and straw dealer, the sum of £l2 expenses incurred in main. tabling the defendant's wife for sight weeke. Mr. Prest appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff, having deposed to the fact that Mrs. Rubinson had lived at his house for the time stated, was crossexamined by Mr. Prest. Ile stated that she came to live at his house on the Ist of May, and left on the 3rd of July. She canie to him from her father's house. She was married in lace, but witness was not present at the marriage. She had never lived with her husband, and she came to witness from her father's house in consequence of a quarrel. She did not come to live with witness because she and his wife were cousins. Mrs. Robinson was called. She said sha was married to the defendant on the 13th of October, 1869. She had never lived with her husband, who left her at the station immediately after their marriage. She had cohabited with Lim from time to time, but they had never had a house of their own. On several occasions she had gone to his parents to claim to live with him, and they had put her out and shut the door in her face. Iler husband would not support her, and had never given her a penny. Ile resided with his friends. Mr. Prest submitted that there wan no case. The plaintiff mintenance of the defendant's wife knovnig that they were living apari. The Judge said that did not matter. The question was, why were they living apart? If it was from the fault of the wife, then of course the husband was not liable, but if they were living apart because the husband refused to support her, then the plaintiff was liable to recover. Mrs. Robinson, in crossexamination by Mr. Prest, said she and the deerndant were married at Liverpool from the house of a friend of the defendant. • Before she knew the defendant she had been engaged to be married to someone else, but she had kept company with the defendant two years before she went with the other youne. man. The defendant had said lie would murder her rather than see her the wife of another man. Ile was sober at the time of the wedding. Immediately after the wedding they came back to Manchester and separated at the View is. Station. Mr. Prest.—Flow did you come to separate ? IVitnss.—lle asked me to go home for a few days, while he made a home, and I said I wouid rather go to his parents' house. Ile told me to get into the I train while he fetched the tickets and as the train was moving off he came and said, "1 am going to see some friends." Ile went away, and I went to his father's house. They turned me out, and said thee. was no home for me there' and I went to my father' house, but my father andl had a quarrel, and I had to live at my sister's. I have no property. At the Victoria Station I did not my to the defendant, "I do not know what we have done it for; I don't care I have done it to spite my mother." James Robinson, the defendant, said he had known the last wit nem for many years, but notes a "sweetheart," and they had never "been sweethearting." Mr. Prest.— How did you come to marry her? Witness.—On the Friday night before she was to be married to the I other man on the Monday, she came to our house and asked my mother if she would--The Judge.— Never mind all the rigmarole; you have married her. The Witness continued.—As we were coming to Manchester I asked her what she intended to do. She said she did not know. I said, "Something will have to be done, and she replied, "I have done ! it for a lark to spite my mother." And then I went ! home, and she went home. We have never lived together. Air. Prest.—Wigley knew of these drcumstances? The Plaintiff.—No. The Judge.—lt does not matter. There is not the smallest ground ' for shifting the obligation upon this man (the plaintug. If the defendant has chosen to marry for a ; lark he must support his wife in earnest. There will be judgment for the plaintiff for the amount olairaed, with immediate execution.