The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1886-02-13
For the Democratic Advocate
Still Discussing the Widows Dover.
PIKEsvILLE, BALTIC. COUNTY, MD.,l
February 9, 1886.

PIKEsvILLE BALTIC. COUNTY Nd,
February g. 1886.
the ADVOCATE, / made the request of Miss warner
of Lineboro to please publish her solution to the
mathematical problem that was inserted IN the
columns of the ADVOCATE of January End. In the
last issue of the paper 1 see that the young lady
complied With my st ana also 1enH IN o
quarter, namely, your Patapsco correspondent.
may inform your Patapsco correspondent that do
not insist that my solution is correct or that others
are wrong, nor do think that am reasoning from
a false hypothesis when say that the word equity
means an equal division The Patapseo gentlemen nan
intended by the marriage agreement, why did IT not
say that if daughter only were left the wife and
Or il only were left, the wife and son should
each inherit onehalf as in either case there would
over the other" The substance of the example
does not affirm this argument. The example says
IF the gentleman left only daughter, his wife
should have u of the estate, and If he left only
SON. II of the property. But, it happened, he LEFT
a son and daughter, in consequence of which the
widow received in equity 400 less than she would
have received if there had been only daughter"
Solution-Widows share if only daughter, 70 OF
estate. Widows share if only a son, of estate.
Widows share when both son and daughter were
left will equal difference between II and 4.A Or
"A will equal s24O0 in equity or equal division y
Il equal 81 AGO. equal wifes portion if son only. Or
allowing the estate equal 81 200 and the gentle
had LET S only aa as
$780, Or, if he had left only son. the w1ies por-
ton would have been "a of the estate which equals
81 400 Again, there being son and daughter, she
received the difference between of the estate a6
which equals 81 800, and "a, which equals ~ 4OO.
si,SOO-s2 4Oo-s2 400. S24O0-wife's dowry if only
son had been left.
Now Miss Warner as does also the Patapsco cor
respondent contends that the estate should be di-
vided into seven portions. the daughter receiving
one share, the wife two shares and the son four
shares Would that be an equal division? Now, If
there had been only two heirs to the estate, of
course there would not have been an equal divi-
sion, as the marriage agreement very plainly states
but as there were three heirs. the gentleman in
tended that they should share and share alike, one
having no preference over the other. l am not as
sorting by any means that Miss Warmers answer is
incorrect Ifher reasoning in solving the problem
is correct her is correct and also claim the
same for my own. claim Miss Warner as my rival
in this argument as her answer was contempora-
neous with my own that is, it was published in the
same issue of the ADVOCATE as mine was. However,
am willing to leave the merits of the to some
competent party for decision and am willing to
abide by their verdict, and am sure thatmy young
lady antagonist will do the same
CHARLES L. SHIPLEY.
[NoTE-The reasoning and solution of Miss War
ner is correct is also that of the Patapsco cores
pondent. 81 100 is the widows share.-EDs OF AD-
vocATE.