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

corng the elementary treae subject the marriage
continue until the husbands DEATH and the claimant must
then be his Wife this being essential constitute her his
widow, only the widow that could be endowed But
absolute decree of divorce annus and destroys the marriage
relation, and hence the marin Ubi RHU"H ditmo"" 'd'
HUIIa dos. = - The enactment of the statute pro
vdes that if any woman be divorced her husband for the
fault misconduct of the husband she shall not thereby lose her
dover This section changes the common law only 50 FAR as to
give the wife dover when the marriage relation dissolved 10y
decree of divorce for the husbands fault misconduct Pre-
Ousy the divorce destroyed her wdowhood and defeated the
right of dover The erpocd and saved the right but
did any earlier period for its consummaon than formerly
existed viz: the death of the husband (GlcdSo Emerson,
u " H. 4O5 BiIldR e. HcckIcbrdd % Ind IL Fletcher
Monroe As Ind IS; LcriS SIocr Greene Q0 GOl; Nc
CTdHcy ) Iowa 231)'
1906 Every shall be endowed of third part of all
the lands owned by her husband any time during marriage
fee simple in freehold for the of fifty years
long twenty-five years of the remains ueXpred but in
no less nv,Icss she is iarfmiy buried thereof"
Section 1907 If husband seized of lands in fee simple
specified in the preceding section shall exchange them
for other lands. his widOc shall have dover in BOTH
Section 1914 I'm of divorce, doving the marriage
the misconduct Of the rife she shall be
dowed See also Section 1916, the Statute Of Divorce
effect.
Section roman may bar her dover by joining with
the husband in decd by her separate deed of release.
There other provisions of the relating barring
of dover which applicable To this
The of divorce authorizes provision be made for
the wife of property of the husband
Dover and divorce allowed y Hawaiian statutes in
dependent of the carter r. Carter 10 ITaw G93
The statutes of New York contain provisions substantially the
the Hawaiian statutes viz Estates of DOVER In
of divorce dsong the marriage for the misconduct
of the wife she shall be endowed and in the relating
to divorce "a wife being defendant in suit for divorce
brought by her husband and convicted of adultery shall be
entitled dover The Court of Appeals of New York passed
upon the divorced wife right dover under those statutes in
Wait T. Wait y. Y. %. The wife obtained Il decree of
divorce dovng the marriage for the adultery of her
husband Later he died. and she claimed dover in premises of
which he scsed prior the divorce The held that
she entitled dover and that the legislature of New York
by expressly cxacng that lin of divorce disolving the
marriage contract the misconduct the WIFE she shall
no
right of dover of divorce for misconduct of the husband
The contrary laid down by the Chancellor in Day
West w CHI 500 at may be asked what becomes of the
wfes right of dover where she proceeds against her husband
and obtains divorce ripcIO mdirm0H? The is
obvious In such all right to dover gone; not how
ever because she has obtained allowance of permanent amo
NY anything in lieu of amony if either should be dccreed
but because of the dissolution of the marriage which puts end
the relation of husband and wife, and by necessary
quence the right of DOVER is essential to dover that
the marriage should subsist the death of the husband.
woman cannot have dover who not the wife of man in whose
lands she claims it at the time of his death"
The of Wait Wait has been criticised in the courts of
New York and also in other and by writer's Bishop
Mar. d Div. 6 ed See. 7OG.
In Price T. Price 124 n V 500 decided in 1S9I Folett
G. j., says In Wait Wait q n. Y. 05) it held that
judgment dvng valid marriage for the adultery Of the hu
band did off the wfes nchoae right dover in lands
of which he the date of the Judgment heretofore had
been sed and she having survived dover assigned The
rested Its decision the ground that the sections denying
wfc right dover when divorced for her adultery, by fair
implication saved when divorce granted for the adultery
of the husband The learned Judge who wrote the last
citco seems to have overlooked ChdrHdHd a. ChdTThdnd
n y. Leg. Obs 1915 Day West q Edw CHI 592) and Reg
nods Reynolds GA Wend 1885 and the judgment has
escaped criticism Ioo,c HcgcmdR, % Hun GS; Aid 90 N
Y. 521. Bishop Mar & Div. See 7O6); but the result
reached by has lately been confirmed by statute Code Civ
Pro. Sec. 1870
Wood Z. Wood 80 Ark. A. Is L. II. a. 49, decided in
1894 holds directly contrary Wait Wait and quote
length from the decision:
ln allowing amony the deceed that it should be
bar of all the plaintiff right Of dover in the the
Henry Wood her former husband She insists that the divorce
having been granted of their misconduct the
court erred in barring her total rights But this
less she could have retained her right dover after divorce
from the bonds of matrimonv She could
10 ente to DOVER she must bc the wife the death of
the husband divorce from the bonds of matrmOny barred the
claim of dover Frdmptou Stephens, L. T. 81 Ch Div. 164
WcCrdncy Ncrdncy. Iowa 241; IS Am. Dec 7O2; GLed
Emerson II y. II. 1885, Barrett Failing III II. s.
52j, Is j. ed 5O5 Day West Edw Oh. 500, L. ed. 517
RcynOdS =. RCgHOIds, u Wcnd. 1876; Wat Wait N v
%: Co Lit. chan ). Snctnn. 3G b Il Com 100: