, 1889-05-28
RATES OF ADvERTIsING.
iva r. CARROLL. Editor.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.


France VS.. John W. Common and VIM. r.
Brown, ~assiguees of james France. 1t
gives a more restricted significance to the
act of congress relating to the right of
dover than that which has generally been
given to it The case will undoubtedly
be taken to the supreme court but the de-
cision of Judge Corn is lone tn, less in
teresting.
Mrs. France sued for dover in all the
realty now in the hands of the assignecs
which formerly belonged to her late hus-
band, and claimed that section IS Of
chapter 1897, volume "a. statutes at large
of the United States, commonly called the
Edmunds act. applied to all the %territor-
les of the United States. The part Of
this section Of the statute applicable is as
follows:
A widow shall be endowed of third part
of all lands whereof her husband was
seized of an estate of Inheritance at any
time during the marriage. unless she shall
have lawfully released her right thereto.
The Legislature of 1876 abolished the
right of dover in Wyoming, which before
that time existed from the common law.
But it was claimed that the section of
the Edmunds act above quoted revived
this act in all the territories of the United
States and rendered null the repeating
statue. In the case at bar the defendants,
on demurrer claimed that this section of
the Edmunds act applies to the territory
of Utah alone, and the court sustained
the demurrer.
The Judge. in rendering his decision,
said that as far as he had been able To
learn this matter, although of the greatest
importance, had never been decided be-
fore. He said in substance: I'm con.
sidering this question we must apply the
usual rules for constituting statutes. That
VIC must consider the context and the
reason Tor the act and the evil that was
sought to be remedied. The first six sec
tions Of the act are amendments to the
crimes act of the revised statutes of the
United States, and in specific terms apply
TO all the territories of the United States,
as why should they not2 For what is de-
fined to be a crime in one locality would
- hull l
TLoa c,n,m - 1t -, 49,
80 go - on,r 80 ,Lo ,our;,on -
Utah.
~
Inc i4'h sec''ou again, oy express
'nwH' % W" = "pp'S ""S 'oiIUory
Vi the on,,ou o'a'es' ihen we nave
secuo"S 'oi,o"'.U ""'o' eNpreSS'y Apply
10 ou'n on'y: ine" comes III section 10,
tue CONSTRUCTION o., "h,'h Is ues'reu' ana
III '"is sec',O" ho.ninH ID cNpresseu Us 10
us "ppica'1'n' No" again III sec.'on 20
""e.o n'e'uo aPpiS - o'ner uer'
rtories' Is 80 eAprcSscu' DO every
where IN 'he act wnen other territories
.n'n oAh are ih'enueu 10 DC aneceed' IL
IS 80 expressly sea'eu. NOW, II ha mat
" Vi nis'ory '"a. m tue Territory OIL
o'an 'nere were large nuhoers Oh men
VINO nad more tnan one WIFE, ana TINS
was tne remedy intended 10 DC remedied
ny TINS ne' anu tue reason ior It's enact
"en- mere may oe some men VINO nave
no'o 'n"n one WIG III "foming' out that
~ the eenerai siape Oh society Con
s'eAS uoes II usually 'aitho"gh unuerthe
V""Su''on 4 no uouo' mas .he power 10
" So i'sis'"'' ~ reEaru 10 'heso matters
'r "NoniinH' inere seems 10 DC no
reason why II Shouiu 40 so IN TINS case.
~ Su'a''is'oh d oi TINS section refer
ieu 10 .he expression she DC an inhao-
iI"n' oi inc 'err'torS II Is urged refers TO
any oa the terri'ories' as IL In iuil II would
DE IL she DC an inhaoitant OF the territory
u "hion Saiu real estate is situated
nut IN otner sections oil TINS act which are
Sd intended II Is so expressed, and this 1t
SeouiS 10 me, refers oh'Y 10 the specihc
.'rr!oory "hlch Is mentioned IN the ad-
Joining sections' VIZ n territory oil
.tah. IL mas neen urged mat the reason