THE CITATION.

This is the term used in this court for the summons served on the respondent or respondents to appear and answer in order to defend himself herself, or themselves from the charges alleged in the petition, which, as we before stated, by rule 6 must accompany each and every citation, and is equivalent to a writ of summons in a Chancery suit, or in an action at common law. (a)

Beside the citation served on the respondent, another citation, together with a copy of the petition, must be served upon any party whom it is intended to make a co-respondent in the same cause, rule 6; however, power is left to the court to excuse the husband, if petitioning, from citing a co-respondent, but only on special grounds: and may also direct, in cases where the wife is petitioning, that the person with whom she alleges her husband to have committed adultery, be made a co-respondent, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, s. 28.

appeared to it. Here, it will be observed, both a citation and a certified copy of the petition must be delivered, either together, or immediately after one another, at the commencement of proceedings.

(a) The term is not peculiar to this court, for it is still used in the University Court of Oxford, and, formerly, in that at Cambridge. It is derived from the word citatio, in the Roman or civil law, upon which code much of the ecclesiastical law is also founded.

In most of the cases already decided the practice has, in accordance with the general tenor of the Act, been for the husband, when petitioning, to cite both his wife and her alleged adulterer, Norris v. Norris and Gyles, 6 W. R., 640, 27 L. J. 51; Tourle v. Tourle and Renshaw, 6 W. R. 544; Weber v. Weber and Pyne, 28 L. J. 11, 6 W. R. 867, 31 L. T. 302; and for the wife when petitioning to cite her husband only, Robotham v. Robotham, 1 S. & T. 73, 6 W. R. 328, 27 L. J. 33, 22 Jur. 448; Pyne v. Pyne, 6 W. R., 507, 1 S. & T. 80, 30 L. T. 376.

The citation, like many other legal documents, must be written or printed on parchment; and the party taking out the same, or his or her proctor, solicitor, or attorney, must take it together with the præcipe, to the Registry, there deposit the præcipe, and get the citation signed and sealed, rule 7: also, upon applying for the citation to be sealed, must, on depositing the præcipe in the Registry, give an address within three miles of the General Post Office, at which it shall be sufficient to leave all notices, instruments, and other proceedings not expressly requiring personal service, rule 8.(a)

After serving a citation an indorsement must be made upon it, rule 13; a form of which will be

(a) This is similar to the 165th Common Law rule of H. T. 1853, and the 17th Chancery Order of October, 1842.

found in the Appendix, page 72; and, moreover, in cases where personal service is either substituted or dispensed with altogether, the citation, in accordance with former practice conjointly with the 13th rule, must be returned into the Registry, Cooke v. Cooke and Quayle, 5 Jur. 103.

The præcipe, mentioned in the last rule, is a short note of instructions, specifying the names of the petitioner, and respondent, and co-respondent (if any there be to the suit), the nature of the petition, the name of the proctor, solicitor, or attorney issuing the citation, which is handed to the registrar, who seals the citation, and files the præcipe.

A form of the præcipe is given in the Appendix, page 72. Forms for a præcipe for subpoena ad testificandum, and for subpoena duces tecum, will also be found in the Appendix, page 76. Forms of citation will be found in the Appendix, on page 71.

SERVICE ON OPPOSITE PARTY.

Personal service of a citation shall be effected by leaving a copy of the citation with the party cited, and producing the original, if required, by him or her, rule 11; and after personal service of citation has been effected, the citation, with the certificate of service endorsed thereon, shall be

forthwith returned into and filed in the Registry, rule 13; (a) after which an interval of twentyone days must elapse before the petitioner can proceed to prove his or her petition, provided the respondent refuses or neglects to file his or her answer, rule 14.

In cases, however, where personal service cannot be effected, application may be made to the Judge Ordinary upon motion in open court, to substitute some other mode of service, or to dispense with service altogether, rule 10.

There are many cases where personal service has been required, notwithstanding application to dispense with it: Robotham v. Robotham, 6 W. R. 328, 1 S. & T. 73, 27 L. J. 33, 22 Jur. 448, 30 L. T. 326; Ex parte Armitage, 6 W. R. 222; Chandler v. Chandler, 27 L. J. 35 (but afterwards allowed, 28 L. J. 7); Allen v. Allen, 28 L. J. 25 (in notes); Sudlow v. Sudlow, 28 L. J. 4, and notes, also vide 28 L. J. 30 (note).

(a) And in accordance with this rule a citation which had been sent to Australia was required to be returned into the Registry before further proceedings could be gone on with, although personal service upon the co-respondent, for whom the citation had been sent, was dispensed with. This shows the necessity of returning the citation, wherever it has been sent, along with the information in cases where personal service cannot be effected, Cooke v. Cooke and Quayle, 5 Jur. 103. In Marsden v. Marsden, 28 L. J. 3, in note, a citation was allowed to be sent to Australia with a blank for the Christian name of the co-respondent.

In the following cases personal service has been substituted or dispensed with :-Dean v. Dean, 4 Jur. 148, where in a petition by the wife against the husband affidavits were filed, stating that he had left his home, and it was found impossible to serve him with the citation, service was dispensed with by the Judge Ordinary, who observed that from this being a petition for a judicial separation, and not for a dissolution of marriage, he had a clear jurisdiction in the matter. From this it will be perceived that there was some doubt whether the Judge Ordinary sitting by himself could grant such an application in cases where a decree of dissolution or of nullity of marriage is sought: however the doubt as to the Judge Ordinary's authority in cases where a divorce is sought, would appear cleared away by the following cases, where the petition has been for a divorce :-Chandler v. Chandler, 28 L. J. 6; Cooke v. Cooke and Quayle, 28 L. J. 5 (and note); Tomkin v. Tomkin, 27 L J. 54; Rowe v. Rowe and Marsh, MSS.; March v. March, 28 L. J. 30.

In the following cases the court has dispensed with citing a co-respondent :-Hook v. Hook, 6 W. R. 868, 27 L. J. 61, 31 L. T. 269; Hunter v. Hunter and Vernon, 28 L. J. 3; Peckover v. Peckover and Jolly, 31 L. T. 269; Jonas v. Jonas, MSS.; Tomkins v. Tomkins and another, 31 L. T. 186; Evans v. Evans, 28 L. J. 20; Lacey v.