The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1875-12-15
HAWAIIAN GAZETTE
AN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL,
DEVOTED TO HAWAIIAN PROGRESS.
Supreme Court Of the Hawaiian Islands.
July Term. 1875
L. lLARCHANT, rs. HATTIE F. MAR
CHANT


This is an action for divorce brought by hus-
band against his wife. alleging that she has at d.
vers times since their marriage committed adul-
terry and that by force of the Act relating to d.
vorce, approved on the 18th day Of July, 1870, be
ls entitled TO q divorce, notwithstanding Chapter
81 of the Session Laws OF 1874.
The 10th Chap. Of the Session Laws of 1870,
sets forth very specifically the grounds on which
divorces could be obtained and enacted that they
should be obiainable on no other grounds-see
sec. lst of the Act-and likewise sets forth the
whole manner of procedure which shall be there
after followed and in its 18th sec. enacts that
sections 1928, 1924 and 1925 of the Civil Code,
and ali Acts and parts Of Acts authorizing divorce
causes to be heard at Chambers, and all Acts and
parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are herebyre-
pealed." The object and effect OF this Act was to
make the obtaining of divorces more difficult than
it had previously been.
The first section of the 5lst Chap. of the Ses-
sion Laws Of 1874, repealed this last mentioned
Act which would have the effect TO revive the
1923, 1924 and 1926 sections Of the Civil Code,
we're it not for the 10th section Of the Civil Code,
which reads as follows:
q The repeal of any law shall not be construed
to revive any other law which has been repealed
unless it be so clearly expressed" and as the en-
actment of 1874. whilst repeating the law Of 1870.
uiu uOi III eApTtSS leTuls TIE eldluLeo
pealed by the law Of 1870, it would follow that
there is no law to enable divorces to be granted
for the future
But it is eontended that the 5lst Chap. of
the Session Laws Of 1874 is void because that by
its second section 1t is enacted That al Act
entitled an Act to permit divorced person to
marry again. approved May 10th, 1866, be, and
the same is hereby re-enacted. See page Sd.
Of Session Laws of 1869 Now the law thus
sought to be revived by this enactment was re-
pealed by quite another law than that sought to
be repealed, viz /; Chap. the 10th. of the Session
Laws OF 1870, which whilst repeating the Act of
the 10Th Of May, 1866, reenacts and amends the
1884 section Of the Civil Code, so that by this
enactment one provision is raised without re-
pealing the other.
But it is argued that the whole OF the 50th
Chap. Of the Session Laws of 1874. is void as be-
ing contrary TO the 18th Article of the Constitu-
ton which reads as follows:
To avoid improper Influences which may re-
suit from interInixing in one and the same Act
such things as have no proper relation to each
other every law shall embrace but one object, and
that shall be expressed in its title"
The Court regards this provision of the Con-
stitution as mandatory, and the disregarding OF
it by the Legislature renders any of these enact
ments in which it may be disregarded, nugatory.
Duley u iun "blCu III eHeCb pIOulOlIo dii luIuIe
divorces, and at the sameume in the same law
maks an enactment by which those persons who
may have been previously divorced, may be
married again, Cor perhaps it may more properly
be said, establishes new conditions on which they
may be married. includes more than one object
in the same enactment, and therefore by virtue
of the authority vested ID this Court we do
hereby declare the 5lst Chapter of the Session
Laws of 1874. contrary to the 18th Article of
the Constitution and therefore null and void.
ELISHA II. ALLEN,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
CHAs. C. HARRIS,
Justice of the Supreme Cont.
A. FRANCIS JUDD,
Justice Of the Supreme Court.
w. c. JONES for Libellant.
SUPREME CoURT---IN EQUITY.
9Th November 1875.