The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-03-01
NEW RULING AS TO DIVORCES
IN HAWAII
Residence in the Territory for Two
Gears Required Of Petitioners for Di-
vOrce.

Judge Humphreys this morning sus-
tained a demurrer in a divorce case
because the plaintiff had not lived i'm
Hawaii for two years before the begin
ming of the action as provided for by
the Organic Act. This is the first time
the point has been raised here 1t is
one that may affect a number of pend
ing cases and 1t is thought that Hum
phreys decision means that some di-
vorces already granted were granted
illegally.
The issue was raised by Gill and
Farley, who entered a demurrer based
upon the Organic act and upon a
United States statute which declares
that no divorce shall be granted in any
Territory except after the applicant
has resided i'm the Territory at least
year. This is the law that was passed
by Congress to get rid of the South
Dakota scandal, that Territory hav-
ing a three months limit. When South
Dakota became a state Oklahoma be-
gan to make bid for the quick di
vOree business, but Congress set the
limit of a year, and in organizing Ha-
wall made the limit two years
Frank Thompson claimed that the
law did not apply to separations, but
only to complete divorces. The court
ruled that the word divorce was a
generic term including all kinds of le-
and the suit was ordered dismissed.
The Organic Act in section So says:
mo divorce shall be granted by the
legislature, nor shall any divorce be
granted by the courts of the Territory,
unless the applicant therefor shall have
resided in the Territory for two years
next preceding the application, but this
provision shall not affect any action
pending when this act takes effect
1t is thought to be very likely that a
number of divorces have been illegally
granted in view of this law Attorneys
have not followed the practice of alleg-
ing two years residence, nor have they
proved it in court, and the question has
never been raised before. The records
of the First Circuit court show ia di-
vorCe cases in that circuit alone, since
June IA, 1900, when the Organic act took
effect. Some of them were pending
when the act went into effect and are
therefore held to be not affected, but
the great majority were filed after the
act was in force. Most of the plain
tiffs had probably resided two years in
Hawaii before they began their suits,
but there is little doubt that some had
not.
1t is claimed that practically all the
divorce suits now pending can be
thrown out Of court, under the law.
Petitioners should allege in their pc
Territory for two years before the
date of their petition for a divorce, "
said Attorney Farley 1T is clearly
necessary to allege and prove this un-
der the law"
The Organic Acts wording on the
subject shows something of an Irish
bull 1t says that the applicant shall
have resided lin the Territory" for two
years before making the application.
As there was no TERRITORY" but Re
| public. up to the time that the act went
| into effect, this would put applicants
| in a tough position up to two years af-
| ter June a. 1900 Residence in the ISL
ands was evidently what the law was
| intended to require. Elsewhere, In sim
| lar provisions. the act uses the term
! Republic of Hawaii or Hawaiian ISL
ands In any event. the United States
! statute, providing that no divorce shall
| be granted in any Territory, except
| after one years residence in such Terri
! tory is enough 1t is claimed without the
! additional iforce of the Organic acts
| declaration.