State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 14 November 1911
• Citation: State v. Williams, 237 Mo. 178, 140 S.W. 894 (Mo. 1911)
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

140 S.W. 894

237 Mo. 178

STATE v.WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 14, 1911.

1. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 147) — LIMITATION OF PROSECUTION — CHANGING OF BRANDS OF ANIMALS.

Rev. St. 1899, § 1903, providing that a person altering the brand of any animal, with the intent to steal or convert to his own use, shall be adjudged guilty of larceny, as if he had feloniously stolen the animal, was first enacted in 1835.In 1879 the law with respect to larceny was changed, and Rev. St. 1899, §§ 1898 and 1910, respectively, provide that any person convicted of feloniously stealing personal property of the value of $30 or more shall be deemed guilty of grand larceny, and that every person who shall steal personal property under the value of $30 shall be guilty of petit larceny, a misdemeanor.Held that, despite the term "feloniously steal" in section 1903, the crime of altering marks on hogs of less than $30 value was only a misdemeanor; and hence, alteration being a misdemeanor, prosecution therefor is, under Rev. St. 1899, § 2420, barred, if not commenced within one year after commission.

2.STATUTES(§ 161) — CONSTRUCTION — ADOPTION.

Where one statute specifically adopts another, designating the title or date of the statute adopted, the amendment or repeal of the adopted statute will not affect the adopting statute; but, where a statute refers to the general provisions of the law on a given subject for its interpretation, an amendment of such laws affects a corresponding amendment of the statute adopting them.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dent County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

George Williams was convicted of altering the marks of two hogs, property of another, and he appeals.Reversed, and defendant discharged.

J. J. Cope and G. C. Dalton, for appellant.E. W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Jno.M. Dawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of altering the marks of two hogs, the property of another, and, from a judgment fixing his punishment at two years in the penitentiary, appeals.

The information is bottomed on section 1903, R. S. 1899(now section 4541, R. S. 1909), and charges that defendant, in the month of March, 1909, feloniously changed and altered the marks of two hogs of the value of $15, the property of one Jesse Beasley.The defendant seeks a reversal of the judgment, on the ground that the crime of which he was convicted was, at the time of its commission, only a misdemeanor, and was barred by the statute of limitations when the information was filed.

The evidence of the prosecuting witness shows that the alleged crime was committed in March, 1909, while the information was not filed until August 15, 1910, some 17 months thereafter.The case turns upon whether the defendant committed a felony or misdemeanor.

Under the criminal laws which were in force in this state in March, 1909, it was only a misdemeanor to steal hogs of less value than $30.Sections 1898 and 1910, R. S. 1899.At that time, the law leveled against the crime of altering the marks of hogs prescribed that persons adjudged guilty of violating its provisions should be punished in the same manner as if they had "feloniously" stolen the animal upon which the mark was wrongfully altered.Section 1903, R. S. 1899.

The word "feloniously," used in the lastnamed section, lends some color to the contention of the state that, while it was only a misdemeanor to steal hogs of the value of $15 in March, 1909, it was at that time a felony to attempt to steal hogs of that value by unlawfully altering the marks thereof.

Section 1903, R. S. 1899, was enacted at a time when it was a felony to steal hogs of any value whatever.R. S. 1835, p. 178.However, the law defining grand larceny was amended in 1879, whereby the punishment for the theft of hogs of a less value than $30 was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor.Section 1307, R. S. 1879.It remained in that condition until defendant committed the crime of which he was convicted.

Section 1903, R. S. 1899, under which defendant was convicted, does not designate the punishment for its violation, but refers for measure of punishment to the general laws fixing the penalties for grand and petit larceny; consequently, when the laws governing grand and petit larceny were amended in 1879, said section 1903(R. S. 1899) was thereby amended to conform to the laws which designated the penalties for its violation.

The rule of construction where one statute adopts another is that, if the adopting statute specifically designates the title or date of the statute adopted, then the repeal or amendment of the statute thus adopted will not affect the adopting statute.Culver v. People et al., 161 Ill. 89, 43 N. E. 812.When a statute like the one now under consideration refers to the general provisions of the law on a given subject for its interpretation, then an amendment of the general laws on that subject affects a corresponding amendment of the statute adopting them.Lewis' Sutherland, Statutory Construction, vol. 2 (3d Ed.)p. 790, § 406.

In 1891 a special election was held in Jasper county, to authorize the county court of that county to levy a tax to erect public buildings.The law authorizing such special election provided that it should be held in all respects the same as elections for state and county officers.Said election was held in conformity...