The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1875-06-26
Written for the P. c. Advertiser.l
Divorce Law.

An idea seems to pervade the community, and the
lawyers are of opinion-or at least some Of them,-
that we are without O divorce law; for what reason
We are unable TO understand. The Act relating to
divorce approved the 18th day Of July, 1870, pro-
vides for divorces on certain grounds, and upon no
other, and also gives exclusive jurisdiction in such
cases to the Circuit Courts Of the District where the
parties last lived together; but on this Island the
Supreme Court has jurisdiction; the Circuit Courts
however cannot act on any libel for divorce unless a
Justice of the Supreme Court is in attendance. Sec
tons 1923. 1924 and 1926 of the Civil Code, which
are expressly repealed by the Act of 1870, gave the
grounds on which the divorce could be obtained, the
jurisdiction, and also when the petition should be
denied. Section IL of the act of 1870, which re-
peals those Sections Of the Civil Code, enaets as fol-
lows: "Sections 1923, 1924 and 1926 of the Civil
Code, together with all acts and parts of Acts author
ICING divorce causes to be heard at Chambers, and
all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, are
repealed From the wording of this Section, and
also from the Act itself, It seems that the intention Of
the Legislature was not directed so much againat the
law aud grounds provided By the Civil Code, as
against the Jurisdiction Of the Courts, or in other
words, more publicity should be given to the proceed
ings than had been given under the Civil Code, as by
it a Justice of the Supreme Court at Chambers had
jurisdiction, which by the Act &C 1870 is repealed.
The grounds for divorce by the Act of 1870, it is
true, were enlarged. Chapter 81 of the a of 1874
repeats the Act Of 1870, without expressly re-enact-
ing Sections 1923, 1924 and 1926 Of the Civil Code.
Section 2 Of the same Act is as follows THAT an
Act entitled { An Act to permit divorced persons to
marry again. approved on the q day of May, A
1866. be, and the same is hereby re-euacted." AL
though Section 1 of this Act expressly repeals the
Law Of 1870, and does not expressly re-euact Sections
1923, 1924 and 1926 Of the Civil Code, yet after
reading Section 2 it seems to Us that it was the In
tentiOn Of the Legislature without expressly naming
those Sections, that they should stand and be of the
same force and effect as if no Act repeating them had
ever been enacted; for if not, why should that Leg
~islature have been so particular 10 re-enacting the
law Of 1866 permitting divorced persons to marry
again, if it was the legislatures intention, that no
divorce law should be on the Statute Books Of the
Kingdom? Section 20, Of the Civil Code, enacts
that The repeal of any law shall not be construed
to revive any other law which has been repealed, un-
less it be so expressly expressed. Laws may be re-
pealed either entirely or partially by other laws
We do not think that this Section covers the case, for
it expressly says any law now Sections 1923,
1924 and 1925 are only portions Of q law. But then
it may be said that the last clause of Section 20,
covers the case. We do not think so; if, however,
the Section had been enacted as follows: laws
may be repealed either entirely or partially by other
laws, but the repeal Of any Law or parts of q law,
shall rot be construed to revive any other law or parts
of q law which have been repealed. unless it be 50