[334] So decided in Y. v. Y. (1860): 1 Swabey and Tristram, Reports, 598-600; Geary, op. cit., 249, 261.
[335] 23 and 24 Vict., c. 144. For the discussion of the bill see Hansard, Parl. Debates, 3d series, CLX, 1628-31, 1734-42. Cf. also Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, 322 ff.; Geary, op. cit., 261 n. 6; Harrison, The Laws of Probate and Divorce, 141 ff.
[336] Lord Hannen, in the celebrated case of Crawford v. Crawford (1886), 11 P. D., 150-58, where the queen's proctor is allowed to intervene to prove a previous decision unjust. See also Geary, op. cit., 257 n. 2, 262, where this case is summarized.
[337] 23 and 24 Vict., c. 144, sec. 7. The "intervener cannot be the respondent, or any one actually instigated by him or her, or his or her nominee; but the mere fact that the intervener may be (as he usually is) the friend or relative of the respondent is no objection."—Geary, op. cit., 263, 264: Howarth v. Howarth (1884), 9 P. D., 218-31; Forster v. Forster (1863), 3 Swabey and Tristram, Reports, 158-60. The queen's proctor may intervene as one of the public. Only the petitioner can apply to have a decree nisi made absolute, but in long default of such application the respondent may ask to have the petition dismissed. Decrees nisi "only apply to petitions for dissolution of marriage and not to judicial separations, restitution of conjugal rights, or jactitation;" but by 36 Vict., c. 31, they do apply to nullity suits: Geary, op. cit., 249, 250 nn. 355, 356.
[338] 20 and 21 Vict., c. 85, secs. 7, 16, 23, 25, 26: Statutes at Large, XCVII, 533, 534, 536, 537. On the law for judicial separation see Geary, op. cit., 352-59; Harrison, The Laws of Probate and Divorce, 148-53; Woolsey, Divorce, 175.
[339] By the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1884, 47 and 48 Vict., c. 68, sec. 5, failure to respond to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, even for a less time than two years, is made equivalent to desertion.
[340] Geary, op. cit., 353, 354.
[341] Except when alimony has been decreed and is in arrear the husband is liable for necessaries furnished his wife: 20 and 21 Vict., c. 85, secs. 25, 26: Statutes at Large, XCVII, 537. Cf. Harrison, op. cit., 152, 153; Geary, op. cit., 424.
[342] 20 and 21 Vict., c. 85, sec. 33: Statutes at Large, XCVII, 539. Cf. Mason v. Mason (1883), 8 P. D., 21-23, C. A.; also Woolsey, Divorce, 177; Geary, op. cit., 354, 255-61; Harrison, op. cit., 182, 183.
[343] Woolsey, Divorce, 177; 20 and 21 Vict., c. 85, secs. 33, 45: Statutes at Large, XCVII, 539, 541.