## IEATTORNEYGENERAI.

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY

GENERAL

:

i

,,,

. .

,, .,BowrubLe Williun II. Henslsy - Pa&a2

whoever fires the grass outside o? any lnolomre with the intent to destre the grass therein by the comnuhioatIon of said fire to the grass, shall be oonrined in the penitentiary not lees than two nor more thah five years*
ktiole 1328b-1 provides, insofar as pextinent to your ~questlon:

. *seotion 1. ALVperson who.wlllruliy’ bets fire to woods, forests, re11008, &r&se or rubbish of any kind, on lands or whloh he is hot in poaseeslon or oontrol at the time of setting out suoh fire, or whowillfully causes fires to be comsumioeted to suoh woods, forests, fences, gram or rubbish, or whow’lllfullg and mal;~olously seta on fire or,,causee to be set on fire any tiDh0r, w0ede., 

### or uahee, 80 **a8** to cause loss or Injury to.ahother, still be guilty of a miedemeamr, and on oonviotion must be Yined not Lees t~hanTen (#lO.OO) Dollare, nor rots tbn ‘hro plud$ed (#P30,00) Dollati~. a,)

‘s00. 4. Sv0lr.iiuliaiui~l al! 06rporation whorriimily or **neg3ig0ntly~aets** or owmunloatee firs to tuber leads, woods, brush, .graer,, or **etubble,** on lamls not their own, shall be guUty of **a** ds**demanor.m** The elements or the two of%&?Ws defined are hot identiaal, Artiole 1327 contemplates the firing of grass wIthin any inclosure, while Article 1386b1 does hot limit the offense there Dresolibed to the **firI= of**  gram wlthin ah inclosure: &tic10 1927 only prohibits the firing of grass not his wn; abile under Seotion’ 1 of Article 136t3b-1, the culprit, though he
wns the land, mapyet be ohar~able dth the offeaae preaoribed if he be not in poelcosdon ox oentrol at. tha time of, setting of such flxe.. ‘Rati 

### ow~~~rehip at k difttingpished 

### fromporiseaslon or control Is indicated in Phillips vs, State, .17 Cr. B0,169, ~ofi#tru.ing Art. 1227e Under JW. 1327, one is ‘@ilty who fires .the grass aa therein prohibited, thou& no dam&e my be ‘
,

. ‘+- .

Hen, William H. Hens1.y i &age3 ',~

done, while Art, 1388b-1 @mtemplahs t&i&t loss or irjury to another shallhare' beetiQaused b+the fires. In Barker vs, State,,140 CrO,EZ. 550, 146~8.W. (26) 761, construingArt,.13g%b~l,.itwas~held nooessary that the indiotaentallegethat datendant set fire to 

### a Sence-Wo as ta caaim less 6r injuzlf to anether" where an indictment under Art. 13&W-1 u&e prebrnted.

Article 1388b-1 ders not ccntain a repealing provision0 Since the two Artiales define ofSenwn, the elements ofwhich are clearly disti@gu.$shable, they do not containprovisions a0 repugnant as'%0 justifya oonstructionefreeoting a repeal of thetearlikr law by implication because of~repugnancj.

~A,moretroublesomequestion inraised by the language of gee. 4 ofArt? 1388b-1; especially in view of the faot thatthe emergenep clause;~whichis 3ec. 5 of the ori~giaal Act, recites tha# the factthat there is no law on%uPstatutes nowprotroting l&&da and timber against fires createsan emergehcy,Wetc.

.Tlite fact~that-the::Legislature proilesssd

to ktmw of'

no.laIF.$roteQEi,ng la+ds,and timber a rim negative’s

any implicatio*&at the intended to repeal~~~.~former law covering the same subjectnetter, Yet.$ec,~ 4 might be construed to deolare as a po1ioy.a.t &,h~,~~llfullysetting or the aommuhicating of fires to .t&kberlands,woods, brush, grass, or stubbleon thb l&G ei another shall be~gu$ltl af a misdemeanor thereby supersedingthe older felony statuts8. If Set, 4 is to be 50 construed, it,<isrepugnant to the app,arent Mom also.be construedas rep&. &‘cto Penal Code Articles .,':, $bs of Art. 1327, Itmight
1321, 1328, 1330 and part&of Article 1388a, at least inaofak 'asthey.applY to annindividual or corporationW These latterbta%utes also deal with willfully or nag: l%gently setting orcommunicating of firs to timber lands,.woods,brush, grass and stubb)e,but each d~al,s pith distinguishable oircumstancesand methods, or ; with theparticular/-- intent-involvedin the commissi,on; of-G&h offense’

defined.ih thatxegard, Some of them

., .-; .2

.,Hono Williem N, Heasley * Page 4

the purposes for whloh this parOioularAct, hrticle 1388b-1,was passed, and also ,togive efreet to thie Article as against corporationsas well as individe uals, **As** stated in St. Louis B & NRailway, et al, f. Marcofioh, 221 5. W. 582, by the OoPriasioaof Appeals and approvedby the 

### Supreme Court, speaking sf apparently inooasistant or repugnant enaotuata:

nThough theymay seem to **be** ropugaant; if it is possible to fairly~reaoaolla them, it is the duty of the court. A,oonstruotionwill be soughtwhioh harmonizes them and leaves both in surreat bpmatiom, rather than destroys one of them. If tha later statutereasonablyadmits of a ooastructioawhich will allow effort to the older law aad still leaves an ample 11ald for its own operation,a total repugaaac8 oamot be said to exist, and, therefore, an illplied

repeal dees not result, sinoe ia sush oaae both my staad ahd perform a dlstincC off10e.~
While it is true that it is orten neeo8- sary to conalude that the Legislature in passing a new law covering the whole subjeotmatter of ah old law i&ended to repea$ the old law as was done iplthe situationa involved in suoh eaaea as Meekw vsr, Wkoelar Couaty,,

125 3,~W. (21) 331b affimaad 144 3. W. (%a) 885; Fleeka vs. State, 83 S. W.,381; and Robextsoavsr State, 159 5. W0 713, such coaclusloarwere arrived at oilywhere an intention to repeal all lnconsiate~nt lawswas oontained in the later act or the l&or sot

inoonsiatent tith ahd repugnant to rambe neted that Frt, 1388b-l deos a& oover the entire field of cri*ieal Law dealiagdth tb settin& of--BiG. See Title 17, Chapter 1 (Ar8oa)a.ad Chapter 2 (OtherWillful Bum&w),

While Article 1327 is closely akln to Artiele 1388b-1 and covers similaroffease and is **gadoubt-~** 

### l aly difficultto dlstla&uish,yet the maadateto ham-, __ onizo and gire~effemt to both laws where possible&eul& it is belierad, be given pawoqnt efrert in theoem-, struotion or these aatts of the Lag&elatore, and we riel~ oompe&Led to so construe thearArtioles in this instance, 

### l sReoially sin00 it is Obviousrrom the language or the later set that no iatentioa aould hsve existed to ropeal the formeraThis department, therefami:a@Brrrw&b JOUT oonolu~ion contained.inyour brief a&a& held8 oonoluaion contained.in Article 1388b-lis lrraooncilablo .a& rapug- that Article 1388b-1~i.s not lrraooncilablo sidF~DUKnaat to llrtiole1327, and themforam'the fox&r deee

llrtiole themforam'the deienot repeal the latter by'lmplloation. by'lmplloation:

W:WB Held, Penal Cod. Artiolo 13MIb-1, ,mklag a rtsdaraur the act of *4.peraonwhp ~illfullj!se)6 firs to wooda* roremta, fencaa, mar6 or rubbish o$ a4 kind, OQ lands of whioh he la net in psmsesrien or control at the time of sottIn& of su$h

## ihi, 0eaa to oause lema br injury to an&her, dors mot ropsalby %P pl&t;., a qricr ouotamt, belpg &k.

IwT~d Ag thatwhoever ulllrlally~ 6rta t re to a4 gram tit&&r an rnalerureaset his bwA with iatrnt to (.Wt~Oy the grass therein is gutltr of a feleaj,,

,, .I’/

.,