been consulted in only four cases: Mordaunt v. Moncrieff, i Pr. & Div. App. 374, upon the question whether the statutory pro ceeding for dissolution of a marriage can be instituted or proceeded with either on behalf of or against a husband or a wife who prior
was subject to several objections. The judges were busy in their own courts and were irregular in responding. Moreover, the manner in which the House put ques tions of law, without regard to the form in which the questions arose, or to points
. V.- ."-* --•
LORD LANGDALE.
to the institution of such proceedings had become incurably insane; Allison v. Bristol Marine Insurance Co., i App. Cas. 214: Daiton i Angus, 6 App. Cas. 742, as to the right of lateral support for buildings; and the celebrated trade union case of Allen v. Flood (1898), A. C. i. The establishment of permanent courts of appeal has obviated the necessity for such consultations. In practice this method of consideration
actually raised often made it difficult for the judges to give a satisfactory answer. These difficulties were clearly defined by Justice Maule in M'Naghten's case, ю Cl. & F. 199. where he hesitated to answer the questions propounded, "first, because they do not ap pear to rise out of and are not put with ref erence to a particular case, or for a particular purpose, which might explain or limit the generality of their terms, so that full an
