The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-01-06

mand her dover that she ought her husbands lands
if c be convicted tcrcupnn, except that her husband willingly,
and without coercion of the church. reconcile her. and suffer her
To dwell with him, in which she shall be restored her
action co. Inst 1873 This wa- in substance
enacted in this state in 1857 Grecn Stat POI Sec - and it
remained in force down the revision of the laws in 1880
in 1890 the Act Of 1857 repealed. and, after de
caring widow shall br entitled DOVER a new provision
was made in the following words In case Of divorce dissoving
the marriage for the misconduct of the wife, she shall
not be endowed Rev Stat al, Sec Under this statute
the adultery is enough It be followed by divorce
dssoIyu the marriage This has brought back to
the common law as it stood before the Statute Of IL Ed L. for
have already adultery did work forfeiture at
the common law And to divorce rincio, that always
put end to the clam of dover for although was not nece
arv that the scn of the husband should continue during the
coycrrc it necessary that the marriage should continue
until the death Of the husband. Co. Lit 81 Com 100:
Kent Com. p see and ILL., D. 81 The statute bar for the
Of adultery which had existed for than five
turtles and half bottcd by the repeal of the Act Of
1871 the British being in force in this statc and
the eighth section Of the Act of $50 has added nothing To the
it would have stood had the Legislature stopped with
simple repeal Of the Act of 1897
I'm Wait Wait, : y. Y. %, the overlooking Day
West Edw Oh. 592, g L. cd. 3D. and RcyHodS Rcy-
Hotts u Wcnd 1913, held that judgment dssovng valid
marriage for The adultery of the husband did cut OF the
wifc5 ncIoatc right dover i'm lands of which lac the
date of the Judgment heretofore had been c I'm speak
ing the errcc disovug the marriage that the
said: The statutory divorce IS limited in It's operation and only
affects the rights and obligations OF the parties to the extent
declared by It Is true that the decree Is that
the marriage be dissolved and that eh party freed from the
obligation. thereof This dissolution and release however Is not
absolute The wife, when the husband Is the guilty party, l.
still entitled TO her and the obligation of the marriage
still upon the husband far render it unlawful for
him again marry When the wife the guilty party the
rage still connucn force far give the husband title
toer property, and render it unlawful for her to y
further penalty for the ocnsc, the legislature have declared
that when the wife convicted of adultery She shall not he
titled to dover in her husbands real estate
Holding that decree of divorce had other effect than
that declared by the statute and finding that the dissolution "t
marriage by the decree absolute but that the obligation
Of marriage, according to the statutes OF New ork still rested
upon the husband far render unlawful for him again
marry rested it. decision in Wat r. dt-on the
ground that the section which provided that IN case OF divorce
dsovng the marriage for the misconduct of the wife
she shall endowed by denying wife, right to dover
when divorced for adultery by fair implication saved when
divorce granted for the adultery OF the husband lhS dc
c-ion even under the peculiar laws of New DIRK has been que
toned UO0TC HCgc1dH, - Hun. 90, affirmed - y /
521 ~ Rep 4OS; Price Price, III y Y 3"9 L l.
r. A. 500; , Bishop. Mar. Div. ~ Sep Section l635.
But there in this state limiting the dissolution
martial ties either party. Under the statutes divorced
wife way amony. but in divorce rlHcHO the dSou
ton If the marriage absolute The law in tins
poet mrcpealcd Here quasi marital relation or condition
exists after divorce from the bonds of namoIy has been
granted upon which the right dover attach Under the
statutes Of this the widow is only entitled To- dover 1t l.
true that the language of section 2j1~ of MmtcldS EGe- m
tos the opinion that the wife would bee entitled To dover II
the divorce should hc granted m account OF the husband '
~ .aid I, Chief Justice Marshall in Postmaster GG"" N
Igjt,d Sai,y r. aiIy - t. = l. Wheat il, 80 l. ed N2
"a mistaken opinion Of the legislature concerning the law doc.
not make law Endic Interpretation of Statutes Section 81
The question submitted the court Has Mrs Dove by her
divorce from said NJ d. Monarrat and her subsequent rc-nar
raoo with the said C. V f. Dove forfeited her right t" dover
in the piece Of land conveyed by said Monsanot t" buckley anu
Sullivan We answer in the affirmative.
H1yg HoInics for the plaintiffs
LoyriB ludrcrs for the defendant