Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1878-11-14

ments IN pais, legal phrases, instead OF
Common sense. United States English. ]
I beg you to pardon the parenthesis,
Under this theory otthe Code II became
necessary 70 make provision Tor the sur
yiying husband, In case OF the vile dy.
ing With testimentary. disposi-
ton OF her estate; in plain words
having made will. This, the
nth section Of chapter Is, undertakesto
do tprovides that, . husband may,
lin like manner to the widow or dowress;)
renounce provision made for him IN
the will of his wife; or II no provision be
made for him in the will, he shall have
snch share of his wife's estate rs he
would have had II she had died intes-
tate, leaving chiidnea The meaning
OF this is, certainly, il no renounces the
wiie's will he becomes tenant by curtesy
that is-he obtains life estate III all
of the lands Of which she died seized.
| have italicised the words leaving
children" lprcsume every one viii
understand that they simply assert the
principle Of tenancy by curtesy. Hut,
the Code, now before Inc, adds, or rath-
or prcfixes word Ii says, without
leaving children" What is the mean.
ing oi this? SIMPLY that the husband
would take nothing; because II there
was no issue OF the marriage there could
be no Curtcsy.
But. Mr.. Editor, here lies the point OF
this whole discussion. My edition Of
the Code contains this significant word
"without"; many others, and those in
common use, do not contain II. When
and how il was dropped out | am not
informed. Maybe by accident in COM
position; II fault Of the proof-reader, or
more likely by somebody's direction,
which was illegal and unauthorized. !
am told that tho original rolls, in charge
oi tho proper officer, show that the I'M
portant word without" is in the code,
a. the legislature made II the law OF the
land but have had no opportunity to
verify this statement.
Fortunately, the question AZ to which
il the law is not practical; because tho
acts Of '72-'I3 by an amendment, formal
and Consequential, have reenacted tins
section and have adopted that version
OF the code which leaves out the word
without" Section III, Chap. Is, OF the
code was amended, simply, to substl-
tute the words CLERK Of tho County
Court" for the word Recorder. The
Legislative mind had no reference " hat
ever to the subject under discussion
II seems that the craftsman Of the act
by mere accident, copied from spuri-
Gus edition of the code; I. {, one pub
lishcd after the original form had been
made up and changed, by some usurplng
hand, or the hlundcr al prooi-rcadcr
Which? Let somebody explain. This
settles the law, hut il does not explain thu,
mystery by which the promulgated
Code Of Us was made To differ, in its
publication, from the original chapters
adopted by the Legislature.
II is for the legislature Of 1879 to OK
anime this question and decide whether
the original rolls or the published book
contains the expression OF the leglsla-
tive will upon the subject referred to.
They are in conflict, aud although one
is practically operative, II IL important
Ia know whether 1t was not,
originally, the purpose, and IL not
now, the logical intention OF
our system of Jurisprudence to give II
life estate in Mnds-the husband, rs u
tenant by curtcsy, ~ called, whether
his vile die tcstatu or interstate.
As have said, the the law, as II is, can
be construed and enforced; but il IL
doubtful whether it is law, by accident
or design the next Legislature
should settle tho doubt. '. '.