Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-08-10

throughout, and in every particular,
TO prove, against the constant pres
sure OF this presumption Of law. that
IL is Illegal and void. And II has
been considered that the validity Of
marriage cannot be tried like any
other question of fact, which Is in
dependent Of presumption; because
the law, besides casting the burden
OF proof upon the obiecting party,
will still presume in favor OF the
marriage, and this presumption in
/ creases in strength with the lapse of
! time through which the parties are
cohabiting as husband and wife. 1t
| being for the highest good OF the
I parties, Of the children, and of the
community, that all intercourse be-
/ tween the sexes in its nature matri-
monial should be such in fact, the
/ law, when administered by enlight-
ened judges. seizes upon all pre-
sumptions both Of law and of fact,
presses into its service all things
which can help 1t in each particular
case, to sustain marriage and repel
/ the conclusion of unlawful COM
merce."
/ The same author at Sec. 305, re-
marks: 80 in divorce law We are
[ to consider more the interests Of the
public at large than of particular in
diyiduals. And If a punishment is to
/ be imposed for any crime, especial
| ly, therefore for a matrimonial one
it should be Of nature calculated to
benefit, not to prejudice the public"
1t is a presumption Of law, that
man and woman deporting them
selves as husband and wife have en-
tered into a lawful contract of mar
riage." L. o. L., Sec. 799, subdiv
30; Ollschlager Estate V. Wodmer, So
Or, 145. Marriage is a natural right
/ Where a statute is equally suscepti-
BILE Of two interpretations, one in fa-
yor Of natural right, and the other
against it, the former is to prevail"
Sec 1923, L. o. L.
The sections Of our statute re-
ferred to, and considering the legis-
latlye intent at the time of their pas
sage, Sec. l of the Act of 1901, p.
17S, e. o. l.. Sec, 7O33), validating
and making legal certain marriages,
indicates that a liberal construction
should be given thereto. This Act of
1901 provides that, "All marriages
solemnized by the citizens of this
state prior to the first day of August,
1898, being otherwise valid, are here
by declared legal and valid and of
binding force as to all parties, not
withstanding that such marriage
may have been contracted within six
gP Il
entered as to either party to such
marriage contract; provided, that
this act shall not in any way effect
the legality of any marriage when a
decree of divorce affecting either
party has been appealed from and
not finally determined, or when the
decree is for any reason incomplete
or not final"
As defined by Am. & Eng. Ency. of
Gaw Vol. s, p. 739; 1T is a general
rule in judicial proceedings that
fractions of a day are not regarded,
but such proceedings take effect in
law from the earliest period of the
day upon which they originated and
came in force" The same authority
at page 742 observes in substance,
however, that this general rule, rel
atiye to there being no fractions of
a day, and that the day on which an
act Is done or an event happens must
be entirely included or excluded is
not absolute, but that, "where from
the nature of the case Justice re-
quires it fractions Of a day are reck-
oned. The court ruled in Voorhees,
v Minor, 10 Oh Cir. Dec, 6S1, that
an agreement made on April 2, 1898,
that execution should not be levied
for 10 months was not violated by
the levy of the execution on Feb 2.
1899, as the day on which the agree
ment was made might be included
and counted as part of the spec-
fled time, relative to which Mr. JUS
tice Smith observes: "But we are
of the opinion that the claim of the
counsel for the plaintiff, that there
Is a wide difference between a CON
tract or law providing a period
within which a thing must be done.
and contract or law providing
period beyond which a thing may be
done, is well founded. and that while
In the first case supposed there Is a
great conflict of authorities as to
whether the first day shall be in
cluded and the last day excluded. or
the converse, in the second case the
great weight of authority is that the
first day is included"
Also citing Grlffeth v Bogart 80
L. S. (lS Howl, 1858, and Taylor V.
Brown, 14T L. S. (40 DavisO. $40
The fist case involved the construc-
tion of a statute Of the state of Mis-
souri, authorizing an execution
against the lands and tenements of
a deceased person, but providing that
no sale should be made until after
the expiration of is months from the
date of the letters testimentary or
letters Of administration. The let
ters of administration were dated No
Nember |, 1919, and the sale was
made on May /, 1921, and the tran
saction, as decided in an interesting
oplnion by Judge Grler, was valid
Ihe latter case, Taylor V. Brown. SILL
pra' arose from a United States stat
ute, which provided that lands ac-
qwred Hereunder by any Indian.
should he. and remain, inalienable
Tor period of five years from the
date of the issued of the patent
therefor The patent in question was
dated June Is, 1880. and the date of
the conveyance by the Indian was
June 10, 1855, and his conveyance
was held to be good, the day the pa
tent was issued being included in
the computation Of time-hve wears
MRS Endecott was the only PARTY
VINO mad the right to appeal, IT, for