State v. Berry
Decision Date | 22 March 1927 |
Docket Number | 1430 |
Citation | 254 P. 488,36 Wyo. 257 |
Parties | STATE v. BERRY [*] |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
George Berry was convicted of an offense. On reserved constitutional questions from the district court. Questions returned unanswered, with directions.
F. B Sheldon, Jr., County and Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff filed no brief.
F. A Michels, for defendant.
Defendant demurred to the information and the District Court reserved certain constitutional questions for answer by the Supreme Court; the information was filed under Section 3112 C. S. which was repealed, by Chapter 56, Laws 1921, without a saving clause; the repeal of the statute defeated the pending prosecution against defendant; 36 Cyc. 1230. The right to prosecute ended with the unconditional repeal of said statute; the rule was clear and no authorities may be found to the contrary; the order of the lower court should be vacated with directions to discharge the defendant.
This case is here upon reserved constitutional questions involving the validity of a statute under which the defendant, George Berry, stands charged with the commission of a felony, upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney in the district court of Fremont County. He demurred to the information on certain stated grounds: 1. That the facts stated do not constitute an offense punishable by the laws of this state. 2. That the section and chapter of the statute (Ch. 55, L. 1921 and Sec. 3112, Comp. Stat. 1920 thereby amended) are unconstitutional. 3. That the enactment of said statute by the legislature is in excess of its powers as limited by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this state.
Upon a hearing of that demurrer the district court made an order reciting that the facts and allegations of the information constitute an offense punishable by and under the provisions of Chapter 55 of the laws of 1921 and Section 3112, Comp. Stat. 1920 Section 1 of that chapter, provided that said chapter 55 and said section 3112 are not unconstitutional; and that there is involved in and arises under said action upon said demurrer, important and difficult constitutional questions upon which the decision of the Supreme Court is desired. And the questions are stated in said order in substance as follows: 1. Is the statute aforesaid not unconstitutional under the constitution of the United States as well as the constitution of this State? 2. Is Chapter 55, Laws of 1921, and Section 3112 aforesaid, thereby amended, in excess of the powers of the legislature of this state as limited by said constitutions? 3. Is said chapter and said section of the statutes in violation of Section 6 of Article I of the Constitution of this state, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?
The case upon the reservation of said constitutional questions was filed in this court on January 10, 1927. On February 18, a motion was filed by the attorney for the defendant in said cause, asking that this court enter an order vacating the said order of the district court reserving said questions to this court "with the direction to the said lower court that said action be dismissed and the defendant discharged," upon the grounds and for the reason that the whole of Chapter 55 of the Session Laws of 1921 has been and now is repealed. And our attention has been called by the brief of the defendant in support of the motion to an act of the 19th state legislature recently in session, which in terms expressly repeals section 3112, Wyo. Comp. Stat. 1920 as amended and re-enacted by Chapter 55, S. L. 1921, and also the said chapter 55 (See Chapter 27, Laws 1927, Section 5) following Sections 1 to 4 inclusive relating to the subject embraced within Section 3112 aforesaid, and without, as contended, any saving clause which would keep alive prosecutions thereunder.
The original statute was part of Chapter 191, Comp. Stat. 1920, relating to the ownership, branding and ranging of live stock, providing for commissioners, inspectors, inspection of horses, mules and cattle and other animals, and providing certain offenses in connection therewith. Section 3112 of that compilation, found in said Chapter 191, provided as follows:
The new statute provides, in Section 1, that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale the carcass or any part thereof of any cattle without having the hide thereof inspected and tagged and the carcass or part thereof stamped as thereinafter provided by a county live stock inspector, a sheriff or deputy sheriff, or a constable or justice of the peace of the county wherein said animals were killed. And it is further provided in said section that any person who shall violate the provisions thereof shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary, for not less than one year or more than ten years, provided, however, that the provisions of the section shall not apply to carcasses or parts of carcasses of any cattle sold or offered for sale which bear the inspected and passed stamp of the United States department of agriculture. Section 2 provides certain duties of the person presenting the carcass for inspection and for stamping the carcass by the officer to whom the carcass or part thereof has been presented for inspection. Section 3 provides for the furnishing of stamps to be used by the officers and live stock inspectors whose duty it shall be to inspect hides, and certain other duties to be performed by them, and also for a fee for the inspection to be paid by the one presenting the hide or carcass for inspection.
Section 3111, Comp. Stat. 1920, contained a provision requiring a peddler of beef to have the hide of each beef tagged by the inspector or his deputy or the sheriff or his deputy before the same is peddled or offered for sale, and upon demand to produce said hide or the inspector's certificate of inspection. And there are other provisions in that section which do not seem to coincide even substantially with the provisions made in the new act, when considered in connection with Section 3112 providing the penalty and under which the defendant was prosecuted, and providing also that such a defendant might produce on demand either the hide of the animal or a certificate of inspection, and a limitation of the punishment for a violation thereof to a fine of not less than $ 25 nor more than $ 500. In none of the sections of the new statute does there appear any provision in the nature of a saving clause.
In Mahoney v. State, 5 Wyo. 520, 42 P. 13, 63 Am. St. Rep. 64, the general rule was stated that after a statute is repealed, without a saving clause, or without an affirmance in substantial terms of the enactment of the former law, the former repealed statute, in regard to its operative effect, is considered as if it had never existed, except as to matters and transactions passed and closed. And that if a statute defining and punishing an offense is repealed, without a saving clause, before the final action of the appellate court, it will prevent an affirmance of conviction and the prosecution must be dismissed or the judgment reversed; where it appears also that the repealing statute does not contain a substantial re-enactment of the provisions of the old statute, so that a prosecution brought under the old might be finished under the new act. In that case it was said, in the opinion by Groesbeck, Chief Justice, considering the old and new statutes then under consideration, as follows:
That case is fairly applicable here, and we think the difference between the two statutes now being considered is much greater than appeared in the case of the statutes considered in the Mahoney case. The former statute, under which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Lee, Atty. Gen. v. Continental Oil Co
... ... Dodge. The Wyoming unfair competition ... statute has not been superseded by the National Industrial ... Recovery Act or by the Wyoming State Industrial Recovery Act ... The Wyoming cases of Mahoney v. State, 5 Wyo. 520; ... Tucker v. State, 35 Wyo. 430, and State v ... Berry, 36 Wyo. 257, cited by defendant are not decisive, ... and are of no particular value as authority in the case at ... bar, for the reason that they involve different facts, and ... the first of them was decided before the enactment of the ... statute here under discussion. Wyoming has not made ... ...
-
In re Gillette Daily Journal
... ... Van ... Harlington v. Doyle, 54 L. R. A. 771; Cooley Const. (4th ... Ed.) 393, 46 C. J. 27; State v. Trenton, 54 N. J. L ... 444. A local law is one made for less than a class. 36 Cyc ... 986; Guthrie Leader v. Cameron, 3 Okla. 677, 690, 41 ... Kelley v. Rhoads, 7 Wyo. 237; Invst. Co. v ... Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110; Jenkins v. City of ... Cheyenne, 11 Wyo. 86; State v. Berry, 36 Wyo ... 257. The question relates to the size of a newspaper page ... There is nothing to show the size of the pages of the ... Gillette ... ...
-
Dunn v. Gilbert
... ... here on direct appeal. Maney Brothers had secured a contract ... for the construction of a portion of [36 Wyo. 252] state ... highway east of Orin, in Converse County. M. E. Gilbert, of ... Gilbert Brothers, approached Maney Brothers, offering to ... furnish the ... ...