Hi All, This paragraph from the Argus, which I should have the index on-line by tomorrow (three pages are on-line) it gives a heap of information if someone lost an OSBORNE. It is quite long but the end is very informative!! Cheers Jacqui Cunningham Central Victoria http://www.oldnewscopy.com "It's Old News!" >From Argus, February 19, 1879. "In the case of BLAIR v OSBORNE, heard by his Honour Judge Cope at the County Court yesterday, the plaintiff, Maria BLAIR, of Moray-place, Emerald-hill, laundress, sued Joseph Rowe OSBORNE, of Highett-street, Richmond, for £29. 5s., as money due by him for board and lodging, washing, attendance, and other necessaries found and provided by the plaintiff for Letitia OSBORNE, the defendant's wife, at his request. Dr. MADDEN appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F.L. SMYTH for defendant. The defendant is the plaintiff in the divorce case of OSBORNE v OSBORNE, which is still pending. It was proved that the full amount claimed had been incurred by Mrs OSBORNE when staying with Mrs BLAIR. The defence was that the defendant's wife had committed adultery with a man named SMITH, the co-respondent in the divorce suit, and was therefore not entitled to any maintenance from her husband; that her husband was living in Adelaide when the debt was incurred, and was earning a salary of only £75 a year, and that he had remitted £15 for her when there, which was all he could spare. Mrs. OSBORNE, on being examined, swore that although she went to New Zealand with SMITH, and occupied the same cabin in the vessel, and although lived with him in New Zealand, improper intimacy never took place between them. His Honour gave a verdict for the amount claimed, less the £15 remitted from Adelaide."