Victorian Marriage Cert info...
Name:    Margaret Culloo
Gender:    Female
Marriage Registration Year:    1842
Marriage Registration Place:    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Spouse:    George Robinson
Reference Number:    4473

Information from Jenny Holmes's research... "Margaret Culloo and George divorced in 1867- obviously a big thing in those days.She actually went to gaol. Charged with not keeping the peace after a violent argument and being unable to pay the fine. I haven't as yet found all the paperwork on her time in gaol but she was there as the solicitor's notes for the divorce are written from there."

The Divorce as reported in the daily newspaper...
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.) - Wednesday 25 September 1867
“LAW REPORT.
SUPREME COURT.
MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION,
OLD COURT-HOUSE.—TUESDAY, SEPT. 24.
(Before their Honours Chief Justice Stawell, Mr. Justice Barry, and Mr. Justice Williams.)
ROBINSON, HUSBAND, V. ROBINSON, WIFE, AND GALLAGHER.
A petition by George Robinson, of Hamilton-street, West Melbourne, publican, for a divorce from his wife, Margaret Robinson (born Cullow), on the ground of adultery with Timothy Gallagher, of Melbourne, commission agent.
Mr. Lawes and Mr. Fullerton for the petitioner.
Mr. Bunny and Mr. A'Bockett for the respondent.
Mr. F. L. Smyth for the co-respondent.
The petitioner, from Hull, in Yorkshire, is fifty-three, and the respondent is from Tullogh, in Clare, and is forty-three. They were married at St. James's Cathedral in 1842, he being then a carpenter and she a domestic servant—he a Protestant and she a Catholic. They now have seven children, the eldest a son of twenty-four, the youngest a little girl of about four.
The case now made for the husband is, that Gallagher, who is apparently about thirty-three, was till lately a stranger to him, but not to his wife ; that, on the 12th April last, when he had as yet seen Gallagher only two or three times (all within a month of that day), he saw, from his window up-stairs, Gallagher come to his public-house, the Railway Hotel, near the railway station at North Melbourne ; that after a time he heard the lock of the door downstairs turned, and went down to see why ; that he found all the doors open but one, and that one alone locked, the door of a room in which his wife and Gallagher then were; that he peeped through the keyhole (in which, of course, there could at that moment have been no key), and saw Gallagher and his wife committing adultery ; that he knocked the panel of the door in with his fist, and as his eldest daughter (aged twenty) just then came to the door, he and she then together saw Gallagher and Mrs. Robinson in a position and condition which of itself could leave little doubt of their guilt ; that no one else was in the room with them ; that Robinson accused Gallagher of adultery, beat him, and pursued him up the street, and yet he never denied the accusation, but said, "These things will happen, you know."
The case for the respondent was twofold. As to the adultery, it was a denial of the truth of the charge, or that there had been any impropriety of conduct between her and Gallagher ; that Gallagher was a stranger to her till the 10th March last, and has never been seen by her in her life but four times, all within one month, and all in the presence of her husband, except the last, that of the alleged adultery ; that they were not together then more than four minutes, and were then waiting for Mr. Robinson to come down stairs that an order for stock might be discussed with him ; and that during the whole time they were together, including both the time during which the petitioner speaks of the act of adultery, and that subsequent interval as to which both he and his daughter speak, the little daughter of four was in the room with them, and standing with her back to the door, through the lock of which the father says he peeped, and the panel of which he says he at last burst open.
In addition to this denial of adultery by the respondent, her counsel also raised on the evidence the further point, that the husband's cruelty had been such as to deprive him of the right of divorce. On this point the wife swore to a constant course of brutal violence by the husband—to his turning her and her young children out of house to sleep in a barn—to his pursuing her with an axe, beating, and maiming her, and telling her to go on the streets and get her living there for herself. His conduct led to her obtaining at two different times magistrates' orders against her husband to keep the peace, and to her obtaining one "protection order," under which an allowance of 10s. a week was given to her for separate maintenance.
The petitioner's own counsel indeed observed, "You seem to have summoned us about seventeen times, and to have succeeded only twice." On the other hand, the husband had on one occasion obtained an order binding his wife to keep the peace towards him. As to the alleged cruelty of the husband, his counsel replied—(1) that it was exaggerated, and, as stated by the wife, untrue ; (2) that even if true it was no defence, because condoned by her ; (3) even if true, and not condoned, it was not in the language of the Divorce Statute, No. 268, sec. 70, such cruelty as had "conduced to the adultery." To the last two of these arguments, counsel for the respondent rejoined :-(1) That condonation may be matter of defence to a charge of adultery, but cannot be the basis of a right to sue; (2) that the last words of sec. 70 of the Act 268, "as has conduced to adultery," apply only to the "wilful neglect or misconduct" which they are there immediately coupled with, and not to the "unreasonable delay" or "cruelty" or "desertion" mentioned earlier in the section ; and that the discretion of the Court to refuse a divorce to a petitioner who has been guilty of "cruelty" is not encumbered by the condition that such cruelty must have "conduced to the adultery."
The case for the co-respondent was a denial on oath that he had been guilty of adultery with the respondent or of any familiarity with her.
The COURT reserved its judgment.
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
The CHIEF JUSTICE announced that the Court will give judgment on Monday next in as many of the reserved cases as it may be then ready with.
The Court adjourned until Monday, at eleven a.m.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.) - Tuesday 1 October 1867
“ROBINSON (HUSBAND) V. ROBINSON (WIFE) AND GALLAGHER.
A suit for divorce from the wife, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent.
The COURT held that the adultery of the wife was proved ; that the cruelty of the husband, pleaded as a bar to divorce, was, even if to be deemed fully proved, which was not in all respects clear, to be deemed, in the first place, as condoned by the wife, and in the second place, even if not condoned, as cruelty which had not conduced to the wife's adultery.
Petition for divorce granted, with costs against the co-respondent.”

Married in St James old Cathedral (CofE) in Melbourne on 1 January 1842 - Victorian Marriage Registration No. 1842/4473

Margaret and George had 7 boys and 4 girls.

General:
Margaret was a domestic servant to Mr Benjamin in Collins Street Melbourne. She came to Australia prior to the rest of her family. George arrived from Yorkshire on the “Moffat" in 1841.
In 1842 when George and Margaret were married there were only approx. 14,000 people in Victoria, 6000 in Melbourne.
Prior to 1853 the records that exist are church records of baptisms. It is possible to have up to 3 numbers for one person!
Note the numbers for Napoleon, James Brazier and George Hodgkin - 26232, 26233 and 26234.  Perhaps they were christened on the same day. A trip to Melbourne would not have been an easy one.
There is also mention of Church of England and Roman Catholic Denomination. It seems that George was C of E and Margaret Catholic. Margaret signed her Marriage Certificate with an "X" as she was illiterate- not uncommon for those times. Margaret learnt to write later on in life.
George and Margaret’s life was tumultuous finally resulting in divorce in 1867. The divorce was messy with arguments over accused adultery and domestic violence. Margaret actually ended up in gaol unable to pay a good behaviour bond issued over a violent argument that spilled into the street. In those days women had no money of their own.
After the divorce Margaret married Arthur McKenna in the Catholic Church. George was actually still alive but she must have either lied to the Priest or perhaps the original marriage in St James Cathedral (Church of England) was probably not recognised by the Catholic Church.