ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Page 1, line 1, dele second "the."

7, bottom, add, it is doubtful whether the Court can, after a divorce a mensâ et thoro, hear a petition for judicial separation. Ciocci v. Ciocci, 1 Sear. & Sm. 24.

17, line 7, add, and if a citation has issued for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and desertion, and the petition is afterwards amended by adding a charge of cruelty, if the respondent has appeared a fresh citation is not requisite. Rowley v. Rowley, 29 L. J. P. & M. 15.

ditto.

37, line 9 from bottom, add, and in Seller v. Seller, 28 L. J. P. & M. 99, the demurrer was overruled.

45, line 26, for " MSS." read 28 L. J. 30 (note).

,50, line 1, dele" notice shall."

,50, line 25, dele "L. T."

,, 52, line 8, add

A respondent charged with adultery did not traverse, but pleaded adultery, cruelty, and wilful misconduct on petitioner's part:-Held, that the jury could not take cognizance of the allegation not traversed, and that the respondent was bound to begin, and that after verdict against her on those pleas she could not cross-examine on the allegations not traversed. Bacon v. Bacon and Bacon, 1 Sear. & Sm. 68.

,, 52, lines 18 and 21, for "L. J." read L. T.

,, 54, line 5, after " 80," add, but see now 22 & 23 Vict. c. 61, s. 6, App. liib.

"

"

54, lines 17 and 18, for " Lane v. Lane and Robinson," read Robinson v. Robinson and Lane.

55, line 2 from bottom, for "awful," read lawful.

,, 59, line 13, after "vixerit," add, but see now 22 & 23 Vict. c. 61, s. 5, App. liib.

,, 60, line 6, after" decree," add, or even after such final decree has been made.

Page 60, line 14, after "35," add, 22 & 23 Vict. c. 61, s. 4 App.

64, line 9 from bottom, add

The order for permanent alimony should be embodied in the decree dissolving the marriage; and if this be neglected and the decree has been pronounced and registered, the Court cannot interfere, Vicars v. Vicars, 29 L. J. P. & M. 20.

65, line 8, add, where the Court is satisfied of the husband's poverty, it will not grant an attachment, but will allow a fi. fa. to issue. Ward v. Ward, 29 L. J. P. & M. 17.

68, line 16, for "affects," read affect.

,, 73, line 1, dele “fore."

,, 76, line 12, add, where in a suit of nullity the pretended husband had deceived the alleged wife with regard to the validity of the marriage he was ordered to pay her costs. Midgeley v. Wood, 1 Sear. & Sm. 70.

78, line 3, for "not yet reported," read 28 L. J. P. & M. 94. 78, line 11, add, but if the Court is satisfied of the husband's inability to pay costs, it will be unwilling to grant an attachment. Ward v. Ward, 29 L. J. P. & M. 17. The wife may claim to have a sum deposited in the registry as a security for costs; and that sum will be appropriated to her costs in any event; but if she fails, no more will be allowed. White v. White, 1 Sear. & Sm. 77.

81, line 18, add, but where a petition for dissolution on the ground of adultery, desertion, and cruelty, had been heard before the new act, and the evidence of desertion and cruelty having failed a decree of judicial separation had been pronounced, it was held that a new petition for dissolution could not be filed. Bevan v. Bevan, 1 Sear. & Sm. 76.

83, line 7, for "38," read 33.

,, 83, line 3 from bottom, for "39," read 32.

رو

84, line 9, for "2 Hagg. 248," read 1 Hagg. Con. 248.

84, line 10, for " 2 Hagg. 441," read 2 Hagg. Con. 441.

84, line 11, for " 2 Hagg. 431," read 2 Hagg. Con. 431.

,, 86, line 1, for "1 Hagg." read 2 Hagg.

,, 92, line 13, add, and where a petitioner alleged that he was a surgeon, and that the co-respondent lived in his house as assistant for two years, and that the adultery was committed "on divers occasions" during that period; this was held sufficient to inform the respondent of the

kind of case she had to meet. Smith v. Smith and Liddard, 1 Sear. & Sm. 1.

Page 96, line 17, for "1 Hagg. 303," read 1 Hagg. Con. 303.

97, line 4, for 2 Hagg. C." read 2 Hagg. Con. 11.

103, line 3, for " 2 Hagg." read 1 Hagg.

,, 103, line 10 from bottom, for "721," read 722.

,, 103, line 9 from bottom, for "solicition," read solicitation.

66

,, 108, line 19, dele “ Smith v. Huson, 2 Phill. 254."

,, 112, line 5 from bottom, for "2 Hagg." read 2 Hagg. Con.

,, 113, line 8 from bottom, for "27," read 28.

120, line 5, add, the wife is not entitled to alimony where judicial separation has been decreed by reason of her cruelty. White v. White, 1 Sear. & Sm. 77.

122, line 11 from bottom, for " 25,” read 28.

128, line 6 from bottom, for "3 Hagg." read 1 Hagg.

132, line 7, for "708," read 768.

133, line 11, for "708," read 768.

,, 135, line 7 from bottom, for 186," read 86.

160, line 3 from bottom, for "iii," read 111.

164, line 8, for "2 Add. 27," read 2 Lee, 593.

164, line 18, for "C. 459," read 1 Hagg. C. 459.

165, line 6 from bottom, add, where the husband from the wife's drunken habits was in danger of bodily injury, separation was decreed. White v. White, 1 Sear. & Sm. 77

166, line 2, for "2 Add.” read 2 Add. 292

,, 171, line 14, for " 3 Rob." read 1 Rob.

183, line 3, add, the Court will not call the petitioner in order to support his own case, or to negative any suspicion that has arisen in the course of it, but will only call him in order to satisfy itself, and to prove there was no excuse. Haswell v. Haswell and Saunderson, 29 L. J. P. & M. 21; S. C. 1, Sear. & Sm. 34; Evans v. Evans, Ib. 35 (note). The Court will allow his counsel to suggest questions in order to clear up what the Court has elicited. 29 L. J. P. & M. 21. Where affirmative evidence of collusion was given, the Court refused to examine the petitioner. Lloyd v. Lloyd and Chichester, 1 Sear. & Sm. 39.

186, line 3 from bottom, for "17," read 27.

186, line 8, after "24," add, affirmed on appeal to the House of Lords. Dolphin v. Robins, 29 L. J. P. & M. 11.

Page 194, line 16, for "2 Hagg. 321," read 2 Hagg. Con. 321.

195, line 5, add, The Court cannot now order any case to be heard in camerâ. Barnett v. Barnett, 1 Sear. & Sm. 20; Hall v. Castleden, Ib. 29.

„, 197, line 15, for “1 Hagg. 414,” read 1 Hagg. Con. 414. 207, line 16, dele "1 Hagg. 393."

210, line 7, for " 184," read 684.

210, line 18, for "809," read 309.

216, line 9, for "1 Curt." read 2 Curt.

,, 216, line 18, for " 1 Hagg. Con." read 2 Hagg. Con.

217, line 5, for "1 Hagg. Con." read 2 Hagg. Con.

66

217, line 8 from bottom, add, Where the man's name was "Bower," but the banns were published in the name of "John," both parties knowing the fact, the marriage was declared null. Midgeley v. Wood, 1 Sear. & Sm. 70.

231, line 1, for "sparated," read separated.

231, line 14, for " 3 Curt. 233," read 3 Curt. 235.