Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): County of Henrico, 10 Va. App. 558, 561, 393 S.E.2d 644, 646 (1990) (citation omitted). “While [two] statutes [may be] related as to [their] subject matter, [one] cannot be utilized to create doubt in [the related and] otherwise clear statute.” Seehorn v. Seehorn, 1 Va. App. 375, 383, 375 S.E.2d 7, 11 (1988). This is especially true where, as here, the later-enacted statute deals with a specific and limited exception. “[W]hen one statute speaks to a subject in a general way and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more specific manner, the two should be harmonized, if possible, and where they conflict, the latter prevails.” Virginia Nat’l Bank v. Harris, 220 Va. 336, 340, 257 S.E.2d 867, 870 (1979); see also Houtchens v. Lane, 246 Ind. 540, 545, 206 N.E.2d 131, 134 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Compare Code § 19.2-215.7 (addressing the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where there is a conflict between statutes the more recent statute is controlling and a specific provision prevails over a general provision relating to the same subject matter (B) holding that a general statute is superseded by a more recent specific statute only if the two statutes are in conflict (C) holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls (D) holding that a specific statutory provision prevails over a more general one (E) holding wills more specific provision prevails over general provision
Output (English): holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls