Edland v. State
| Decision Date | 28 June 1909 |
| Citation | 120 S.W. 994,91 Ark. 243 |
| Parties | EDLAND v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; Frank Smith, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
R. P Taylor, for appellants.
Act No 185 of the Acts 1905 is invalid because it is ambiguous, and its construction is meaningless. 36 Ark. 331; 47 Ark. 404; 59 Ark. 237. Invalid also because it is violative of art. 5 § 22, Const. Under this constitutional provision the act of 1905 neither amends the section nor repeals the proviso. Section 1 of the act is to be looked to to see if it does either. What follows it is entirely disconnected from it, separately paragraphed and numbered as a separate section. It cannot, therefore, be viewed as a re-enactment of sec. 11, act No. 162, Acts 1903, 122 Pa. 627, 1 L. R. A. 361; 126 Cal. 291; 87 Ala. 240, 4 L. R. A. 742; 82 Ala. 209.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and C. A. Cunningham, Assistant, for appellee.
Where a provision which excepts a class or specific locality from the operation of an act is repealed, the law operates generally over the excepted class or locality. 14 Col. 228; 68 Vt. 338; 12 Wheaton 419, 147 U.S. 494; 1 Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Int. 573; 2 Id. 672.
The intention of the Legislature will control the construction of the act, and a mere typographical error in numbering the sections will not defeat the operation of the act. Endlich, Int. Stat. §§ 295, 35, 8, 16, 40, 319, 329; 3 Ark. 285; 11 Ark. 44; 22 Ark. 369; 24 Ark. 165; 25 Ark. 101; 29 Ark. 354; 37 Ark. 495; 48 Ark. 307; 75 Ark. 126; 63 Ark. 576; 67 Ark. 566; 69 Ark. 376.
On the 6th day of November, 1908, appellants, J. E. Edland and J. B. Ullathorne, were arrested and tried before a justice of the peace of Big Lake Township, in Mississippi County, Arkansas, for having hunted within the Chickasawba District of that county, in violation of section 3599 of Kirby's Digest, they being non-residents. They appealed to the circuit court of Chickasawba District, and were again convicted; and they then appealed to this court.
They concede that, if section 3599 of Kirby's Digest is in force in Mississippi County, they were properly convicted.
Section 3599 of Kirby's Digest is as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person who is a non-resident of the State of Arkansas to shoot, hunt, fish or trap at any season of the year."
The question is, is this statute in force in Mississippi County?
Section 3599 of Kirby's Digest is section four of an act entitled "An act to protect the game and fish of the State and provide for the appointment of game wardens," approved April 24, 1903. Section eleven of that act was as follows: "That all laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, and this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage; provided, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to the county of Mississippi."
Appellants contend that this provision is still in force in Mississippi County. But it was repealed by an act entitled "An act to amend section 11 of Act No. 162, approved April 24, 1903, entitled 'An act to protect the game and fish of the State, and to provide for the appointment of game wardens;'" approved April 19, 1905, which is as follows:
The figure 2 in the last clause of section one is evidently a mistake. It should be 11. It (last clause) was not an independent section, but a part of section 1.
The effect of the amendment of section 11 of the act of April 24 1903, by the act of April 19, 1905, was to so change the former act as to make it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Arkansas on Relation of Attorney General v. Trulock
...in the same manner it would have read, and to give it the same effect it would have had, if it had been originally enacted as amended. " 91 Ark. 243; 100 Ark. 175; 55 389; 73 Ark. 600; 89 Ark. 598. The cases relied on by appellees in the case of State ex rel. v. Trulock, refer to the interp......
-
Arkansas Railroad Commission v. Stout Lumber Company
...v. McCarthy, 159 Ark. 617; 29 Ark. 252; 61 Ark. 625; 120 Ark. 169; 132 Ark. 609, 612; 133 Ark. 157; 138 Ark. 459; 89 Ark. 600, 602; 91 Ark. 243. C. J. WOOD and HUMPHREYS, JJ., dissenting. OPINION MCCULLOCH, C. J. This appeal involves the construction and effect of an amendment to the severa......
-
State v. Handlin
...Kirby's Digest, was to substitute the section, as amended and re-enacted, for the old section and repeal it, or, as said in Edland v. State, 91 Ark. 243, 120 S.W. 994, "to so change the former act as to make it read in same manner it would have read, and to give it the same effect it would ......
-
Black v. Special School District No. 2
...the proceeds of the sale of bonds, or any other funds belonging to the district; and this definition applies to the amendment of 1903. 91 Ark. 243; 89 Ark. 598; 73 Ark. 600; Ark. 389. 2. The court will not confine itself to a mere literal construction of the statute, but will look to the in......