Hammond v. State
| Decision Date | 20 November 1911 |
| Docket Number | 3,813. |
| Citation | 72 S.E. 937,10 Ga.App. 143 |
| Parties | HAMMOND v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
In the construction of general and special acts, the maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant" applies, and a general act will be held to repeal or modify a special act embraced within the terms of the general act only when the provisions of the two acts are clearly repugnant and irreconcilable, or where the provisions of the general act manifest that it was the intention of the Legislature to enact a general law on the subject-matter which should be exhaustive and a substitute for every prior general, local and special law relating to the subject-matter covered by the general act.
The general law on the subject of the protection of game in this state, approved August 21, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 137), was intended by the Legislature to be exhaustive of the subject and was intended to repeal all existing general, special, or local laws on the same subject-matter.
Error from City Court of Blakely; L. M. Rambo, Judge.
Ernest Hammond was convicted of unlawful shooting of game, and brings error. Reversed.
Hawes Pottle & Wright, for plaintiff in error.
Walter Park, Sol., for the State.
An accusation in the city court of Blakely charged Ernest Hammond with a violation of the act approved August 17, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 417). On arraignment the accused made a written motion to quash the accusation, on the ground that it charged no offense against the laws of this state: (1) Because the local law prohibiting the shooting of game in Early county, approved August 17, 1911, was in conflict with article 1, § 4, par. 1, of the Constitution of Georgia (Code of 1910, § 6391), which prohibits the enactment of a local or special law in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law, and that the local game law for Early county, under which the accusation was framed was in violation of section 586 of the Penal Code of 1910; and (2) because the local law in question is invalid for the reason that it has been repealed by the general game law of the state, approved on August 21, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 137). The court overruled the motion to quash the accusation, and this judgment is assigned as error.
The local law under which the accusation is framed is entitled "An act to prohibit the killing of doves, partridges and quail in the county of Early for a period of five years and for other purposes, and to provide a penalty for its violation." Section 1 provides that from and after the passage of the act it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to shoot, kill, trap, or ensnare, or destroy in any way, any dove, partridge, or quail, for a period of five years from the passage of this act. Section 2 makes a violation of this act a misdemeanor, and prescribes the punishment provided for in section 1039, Penal Code of 1895. Section 3 repeals conflicting laws. When this local law was passed, the general law on the subject, as contained in section 586 of the Penal Code of 1910, made it a misdemeanor for a person "to shoot, trap, kill, ensnare, net, or destroy, in any manner, any wild turkey, pheasant, partridge or quail, between the fifteenth day of March and the first day of November in each year, or to kill, shoot, trap, ensnare, net, or in any manner destroy any dove, marsh hen, or snipe, between the fifteenth day of March and the fifteenth day of July in each year." The accusation in the present case charged that the accused, on the 27th day of October, 1911, in Early county, did unlawfully shoot and kill one dove, in violation of the act of the Legislature approved August 17, 1911, prohibiting the shooting of doves and other game birds in Early county from the date of the passage of said act. The general act of the General Assembly, approved August 21, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 137), need not be set out in full.
It is manifest from the act, considered as a whole, that it was intended to embrace all the law on the subject of the protection of game in this state. The act establishes a department of game and fish for the state, provides a state game and fish commissioner, game wardens, and deputy game wardens, and was clearly intended to cover the whole subject of protection of game in this state, and to fix and prescribe the only rules in respect thereto, and it was also intended by the Legislature that it should act as a repeal of all former statutes, either general or local, relating to the same subject-matter, whether they were, in direct words repugnant to this act or not; and we are clearly of the opinion that this general act, by terms, expressly covers the...
To continue reading
Request your trial