Law Magazine and Review. Page BAILMENTS, LAW OF, A NEW DEPARTURE IN. (Coupé Co. ... ... 33, 130 The Institut de Droit International (Hamburg, 1891) DIVORCE, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF. MONNIER: I. JURISDICTION: GENERAL RULE. INDIA, THE FUSION OF EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL POWERS ... Page INDIA, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN. By JOHN DACOSTA ... 261 JURISPRUDENCE, RATTIGAN'S ... ... 311 MARRIAGE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, The REFORM OF. By ALEXANDER ROBERTSON ... ... I POLITICAL LIBEL, THE LAW OF. By J. W. Ross BROWN 192 QUARTERLY NOTES: Law at the International Congresses, London, 1891 The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, and Mr. Channing's ... 95 Goulder 251 Private International Law of Divorce: Goulder v. REVIEWS: ... ARCHIBALD, Metropolitan Police Guide 253 BARCLAY'S Le Droit de Visite, la Traite, et la Conférence ... COTTON'S PATERSON'S Practical Statutes, Session 1891 ... ELLIS, Electors and Election Agents (Rumsey's Legal Hand Revue Générale du Droit Français et Etranger (Paris), ... Edited by J. LEFORT QUARTERLY DIGEST OF ALL REPORTED CASES. Lomax, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. LAW THE MAGAZINE AND REVIEW. No. CCLXXXII.-NOVEMBER, 1891. I. THE REFORM OF THE MARRIAGE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. Subject Defined. RECENT events, such as the decisions in the cases of Reg. v. Jackson, reported L.R. [1891] 1 Q.B. 671, and Beauclerk v. Beauclerk, reported in the Law Reports [1891] P. 189, have lately drawn special attention to our laws as to the persistent desertion of a wife from her husband, and as to the adultery of a husband who had lived apart from his wife for twenty years, and who was charged with frequent acts of adultery during that period. As the Law of England, in my opinion, affords inadequate remedies in these and cognate subjects, I here propose to give a résumé of the reports of those cases, and to make some observations upon the decisions themselves, and to offer suggestions in regard to the reforms which are desirable, or imperatively required, in our laws as to desertion, divorce, and kindred subjects. But I have to observe that I shall, in this article, chiefly confine myself to the consideration of the status of married persons in England. Reg. v. Jackson. In this case, on the 15th of March, 1891, an ex parte application, on behalf of Emily Jackson, was made to a Queen's Bench Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice, before Mr. Justice Cave and Mr. Justice Jeune, for a writ of Habeas Corpus to be directed to her husband to bring her before the Court in order to restore her to liberty. From the affidavits produced in support of the application, it appeared that Mrs. Jackson, who was 46 years of age, had, on the 5th of November, 1887, married, at Blackburn, Edmund Haughton Jackson; and that the marriage had taken place without the knowledge of any of her family. It further appeared that, on the following day, Mr. Jackson went to London, and four days afterwards sailed for New Zealand. During his absence abroad, Mrs. Jackson corresponded with him; but, before he returned to this country, she wrote to him that she would not live with him. In July, 1888, the husband returned to England, and Mrs. Jackson persistently refused to have anything to do with him. He, however, commenced legal proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights, and, on the 30th of July, 1889, obtained decree in his favour. Mrs. Jackson refused, and still refuses to obey this decree. On Sunday, the 8th of March, 1891, she was forcibly seized at the door of the church at Clitheroe, and carried away by Mr. Jackson to Blackburn, and had been detained there up till the application for the said writ. The evidence also proved that Mrs. Jackson was forcibly detained against her will, by her husband, Mr. Jackson; and that all access to her by her relations, or by her medical and legal advisers was prevented by her husband. There was no evidence given, on the application for the writ, of any violence or ill usage since the date of her capture. Several statutes and cases were cited at the Bar, and in the Judgment of the learned Judge, Mr. Justice Cave, who delivered the leading Judgment. They were the following: The original Habeas Corpus Act of Charles II., and the Act of 56 George III., c. 98, "for more effectively securing the liberty of the subject," were cited. The case of the Countess Ferrers, |