Limitation Op Actions. By C. H. S. Preston & G. H. Newsom
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1940.tb02733.x |
| Date | 01 July 1940 |
| Published date | 01 July 1940 |
80
MODERN
LAW REVIEW
July,
1940
the petitioner is guilty of adultery or there has been undue delay.
The
modem tendency is
to
recognise “the undesirability of maintaining the
marriage tie where there was
no
possibility of the married couple
living
together again.” Thus the authors are able to cite numerous old
cases
where decrees were refused in circumstances that would certainly be
accepted as extenuating today. Similarly, the legal definition of cruelty,
which the Ecclesiastical
Courts
limited to cases of violence or actual
threats, have been extended to include any form of ill-treatment and even
“moral” cruelty. Again, the rule that a guilty wife should not have
access to the children of the marriage has been relaxed
so
as
to remove
its
punitive basis; and the rules as to damages against a co-respondent have
been modified.
All
these changes, significantly enough, date from the
war
of
1914-18;
and the bare legal record, revealed by the authorities,
is
a
document of great social interest.
In
passing
it
may be said
that
the differences between a void and
voidable mamage, which are considerable and not yet fully worked out,
might have been more fully discussed. Also, the effect of a conviction for
bigamy
on
a petition based
on
adultery
is
not made clear at p.
508.
The
rule appears to be that a conviction for bigamy does not
per
se
raise any
presumption of adultery, which must
be
strictly proved in this meticulous
division; the effect of
Ellam
v.
Ellam
and
Bomaparte
v.
Bonaparte
is mis-
stated in the text at p.
75.
Lastly, some
of
the precedents are a little
verbose;
a
pleading should
be
as brief as possible. But the worE covers
every topic arising out of matrimonial causes;
it
collects together over
250
pages of statutes and orders;
it
deals fully
with
the practical as well
as
the legal aspect
of
every point
;
and concludes with a comprehensive
index. This edition cannot fail to enhance the reputation of its
predecessors.’
G.
A.
FORREST.
LIMITATION
OF
ACTIONS.
lviii and
480
pp.
1940.
82s.
6d.
net.
By
C.
H.
S. PRESTON
&
G. H.
NEWSOM.
The Solicitors’ Law Stationery Society Ltd.
Reviewed on p.
46.
1
There are a few printing errors
in
the text; e.g.:,at
p.
366
“child” should
be
‘‘
husband
”
and at p.
551
I‘
form
”
should
be
‘‘
for.
To continue reading
Request your trial