The State v. Koock
| Citation | 100 S.W. 630,202 Mo. 223 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ARTHUR KOOCK, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1907 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Transferred from Kansas City Court of Appeals.
Reversed.
W. D Steele for appellant.
(1) Appellant insists that there is no law in force in this State that requires him to obtain or take out a hunter's license in order that he may hunt in the county in which he lives and that there is no law prohibiting him from hunting in the county in which he lives without first taking out a license. Neither is there any law fixing a penalty for so doing. Section 54 of the act in question says, "It shall be unlawful for any person after the passage of this act to hunt in this State outside of the county in which he lives without first obtaining a license permitting him or her to do so." Therefore, by clear implication and by the ordinary rules of construction it is lawful to hunt anywhere in the State except as here prohibited in section 54, that is except outside of the county in which he lives. (2) Section 61 of the game law provides that "any person who shall hunt in this State without being at the time of said hunting in possession of a license as herein provided, duly issued to him or her, which license shall cover the period in which he or she shall be hunting, or who shall furnish to another person a license issued to him or her, shall be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, and costs of prosecution." Now section 54 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt in this State outside of the county in which he lives, without first obtaining a license. Section 58 provides the manner in which license may be obtained and enumerates those persons entitled to obtain a resident hunters' license, and further provides that owners and tenants of farm lands may hunt on their lands without any license. Section 21 provides that unless specifically restricted the words "herein or hereof" refer to the whole act. (3) Construing the whole act, is it not the obvious intent of the Legislature that any person may hunt in the county in which he lives without first taking out a license; and, second, that owners and tenants of farm lands may hunt on such lands without a license, and that regardless of where such lands are situated? The words "as herein provided," used in section 61, must, by virtue of the express provision of section 21, refer back to sections 54 and 58. Another well-settled rule of construction is that the whole statute must be so construed as to harmonize all its parts, if possible. Following this rule and construing sections 21, 54, 58 and 61 together, we have the following, which is the only construction by which all these sections can be harmonized and is a very reasonable construction, namely: "Any person who shall hunt in this State outside of the county in which he lives without being at the time of said hunting in possession of a hunter's license shall be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, provided that this section shall not apply to owners and tenants of farm lands who may hunt on their own lands without obtaining a license." To put any other construction on the statute would be to render section 54 an absolute nullity, in order that a strained construction may be put on section 61. Further, by giving to these several sections the construction that we have attempted we have followed the rule that a law should be so construed that all words of the statute will have effect. (4) A statute should be so construed that effect will be given to all of its provisions. National Bank of Commerce v. Ripley, 161 Mo. 126. When a literal construction of any section will conflict with any other section of a statute or with the scope and manifest intent of the act, it is the duty of the court if possible to harmonize the various provisions and if necessary depart from a literal construction of one or more sections. State ex rel. v. Heman, 70 Mo. 441. All parts of a law must be considered in getting at the full significance of any part of it. State ex rel. v. Marion County Court, 128 Mo. 427. Effect must be given if possible to all of its provisions. Riddick v. Walsh, 15 Mo. 519. All the words of a statute must have effect rather than any part should perish by construction. St Louis v. Lane, 110 Mo. 254. When it is plain that a particular intention was in the mind of the Legislature, though not precisely expressed, that intention must govern and control the strict letter of the law. State v. King, 44 Mo. 283. The courts if possible should construe a statute so as to avoid conflict between the various sections. City of Westport ex rel. v. Jackson, 69 Mo.App. 148. This being a criminal statute, it must be construed strictly against the State. State v. Balch, 178 Mo. 392.
C. C. Kelly, Barnett & Barnett and J. H. Rodes for the State.
(1) Hunting in the county in which a party resides without taking out a hunting license under the game law constitutes an offense. Section 58 is the section which authorizes a party to take out a license. There is no provision in section 54 for issuing a license. It does not prescribe the party who issues the license nor the qualifications necessary to obtain a license nor the steps necessary to be taken. But who is entitled to a license and what his application must set forth, the fee to be paid, and the party who is authorized to issue it, are all prescribed by section 58. Section 61, in plain, unambiguous and unequivocal language, says that any person who shall hunt in this State without being at the time of such hunting in possession of a license, as herein provided, duly issued to him or her, shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars. This section is unqualified and prohibits hunting anywhere in the State. Section 58 prescribes who may obtain a license and how it may be obtained, and section 61 is the section that defines the crime of hunting without a license, and when the question is asked, where is it that a person cannot hunt without a license, section 61 gives the answer and responds in plain, unambiguous language, that a person shall not hunt in this State, that is, anywhere in the State, without being in possession of a license. It is contended that section 54 of the act authorizes a party to hunt in his own county without a license. The section does not so state, but simply states that it is unlawful for any person to hunt in the State outside of the county in which he lives without first obtaining a license permitting him to do so. It does prohibit him from hunting outside of his own county without a license, but does not authorize him to hunt in his own county, or, in other words, it does not contradict or nullify the provisions of section 61, which, in broad terms, prohibits him from hunting in any county, including his own. These three sections, 54, 61, and 58, must all be construed together as one section, and in fact all the other sections relating to this subject must be read into them. It is a familiar rule of construction of statutes that sections and parts of the statutes, in pari materia, are to be treated as if embodied in one section. St. Louis v. Hardware Co., 119 Mo. 45. Let it be understood, once for all, that the license in question is not a county license, but a State license. The party wishing to hunt takes out a license once for all in one county, which permits him to hunt anywhere in the State, and the place where he is to take this license is in his own county. The purpose and function of section 54 is obvious. As there is no provision in the law for a party taking out a license in any county other than his own, it might have been supposed that when a man was outside of his own county, as there was no provision for his taking out a license in the county in which he was a non-resident, that, therefore, he could hunt in such county without any license at all. It might have been supposed that these licenses were mere county licenses and that a man was required to take out a license in his own county, but in no other county, and, being not required to take out licenses in another county, it would not be wrong to hunt in any other county without a license. But section 54 simply settles this question by stating that, notwithstanding there is no provision for a man taking out a license in any other county than his own, yet he cannot hunt in such other county without first taking out a license under section 58 in the county where he resides. We call the court's especial attention to the difference of the language in section 61 and in section 54 with regard to taking out a license. In section 61 it says that a person shall not hunt in the State without being at the time of such hunting in possession of a license as herein provided. Mark the words, "without being in possession of a license." Section 54 does not say that they shall not hunt outside of their county without being in possession of a license, but says that it shall be unlawful for a person to hunt in the State outside of the county in which he lives without first obtaining a license permitting him to do so, that is, without first going to his own county and obtaning a license from the clerk there. He must first go to the clerk of his own county and get his license, that is, obtain it, before he can go to another county to hunt. And when section 58 is read into section 54, it merely says that it is unlawful for a person to hunt in this State outside of the county in which he lives without first obtaining a license from the county clerk in the county where he resides. It seems to us nothing can be clearer than this. We call especial attention to the fact that it is not true that section 54 is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial