Title

Claim for maintenance by wife [of E.D. Barlrow].

Author

Author not identified

Source

Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) 18 April 1831 - ongoing

Details

12 February 1845, p.3, col.1.

Publication date

12 February 1845

Type

News

Language

English

Country of context

Australia

Full text

CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE BY A WIFE.- On Thursday and Monday last, the Police Court was engaged for several hours each day, in hearing an application by Mrs. Maria Sarah Lyons Barlow, for a separate maintenance from her husband, Edward David Barlow, artist, Bridge-street. From the case brought before the Court, it appeared that the complainant was lawfully married to the defendant, in London, about the year 1831, that he afterwards left her for a period of six years without, any means of support, after which he again joined her and brought her with him to this colony; that she had a marriage settlement of from £60 to £80 per annum, of which he had hitherto received all the proceeds, and that papers had, since their arrival in this colony, been sent home, to secure to him whatever proceeds might be available from the said settlement; while Mrs. Barlow was confined to her room by indisposition in October last, her husband told her that he had made up his mind to live apart front her, as he had found a real lady with whom he could be more comfortable than with her, Mrs. Barlow, at the same time he wished to make such arrangements with her (Mrs. Barlow,) as would prevent any thing like a rupture between them, from getting before the public. Mrs. Barlow, in reply, told him that her affection for him was unchanged; but that if it would conduce to his happiness, she would take up her lodgings elsewhere, provided he found her the means of subsistence; he accordingly took a cottage for her at Newtown, for 12 months, at a weekly rent of 8s, per week, and agreed to pay her 20s. per week for maintenance. Soon after Mrs. Barlow had gone to reside at Newtown, a female, who gave her name as Madame Hartnell, late Mrs. Hartwell, alias Miss Myers, was received by Mr. Barlow into his residence, as housekeeper, and discharged the duties of that station without any remuneration. Mrs Barlow, it appeared, called several times, and had words with the housekeeper, on which, Mr. Barlow availed himself of Mrs. Barlow's absence from the cottage at New Town, which he entered, and carried off Mrs. Barlow's piano- forte, with other articles of furniture, some of which was placed in his own house in Bridge street, and the rest sent to an auction-room and sold off. In consequence of this abstraction of the furniture, Mrs. Barlow's means of gaining a respectable subsistence by teaching music, &c, were materially narrowed, and she now sought to have an allowance of £2 per week made to her, as being what her husband's circumstances entitled her to, and what he was able to pay. Hartnell, the house- keeper, was called and examined at considerable length as to her previous history from which it appeared that she arrived as a prisoner in this colony, and had obtained her freedom on the 23rd of October last; that she had been before the Maitland Bench, and also before the Hyde Park Barracks Court; that previous to her obtaining her freedom, she had subsisted by keeping a seminary for young ladies; and that although she assumed the designation of mistress, she never had been married. The witness declined giving the Court any information as to the manner in which she lived in Mr. Barlow's house. The defendant's landlord was called for the defence, to prove that he (Barlow) could not pay more than he was doing at present, as he owed him £80 for rent, £40 of cash borrowed, and £5 of a book debt, but did not owe any other person £10. His stock was at present unsaleable at any price. The Bench considered that on all the facts brought before it, Mr. Barlow was not in a condition to pay £2 per week, but ordered him to pay 30s. per week, on condition that Mrs. B. gave up possession of the cottage, which she agreed to surrender. After the case was decided, Mr. Barlow and Miss Myers left the Police Yard, arm in arm, amidst the jeers of the spectators.

[Sydney Morning Herald, 12 February 1845, p.3, col.1.]
 

Last Updated

13 Aug 2012