Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1863-05-20

Court OF COMMON PLEAs.-Ohio US.
Clinton. Indictment for grand larceny /;
Court Of Common Pleas; cuyahOga county,
May term, 1868.
Motion to quash indictment.
Defendant was indicted under the 18th sec
ton OF the act of 1885, for larceny. 0Fsnss
alleged to have been committed in January
last. Indictment found at the February
term.
Subsequently the Legislature repealed the
section Of the statute on which the indict-
ment was Indicated without any clause
saving prosecutions under it, or specifying
when the repeating act should take effect
and it was claimed for the motion that the
law having been repealed without any saw
ing clause, the indictment must fall, &c.
Judge Foote held in substance, that the
law alleged to have been violated had been
repealed without any saving clause, and that
unless the right Of action was saved by som e
other statute, the prosecution must fail
that saving can only be found in the I'd
section of the statute of April 9Th, 1886.
That section provides: "That whenever
a statute is repealed, such repeal shall in nc
manner effect pending actions founded there
on, nor causes of action not in suit that Oc
CURED prior to any such repeal, exoeptas may
be provided in such repeating statate."
1t is claimed tina the language of this sec,
ton excludes criminal prosecutions that i
applies only to actions and the rights of in
dividuals against each other" civil &C,
tons" Must it be so limited9 Will a fail
construction include prosecutions for crimes
The mischief to be provided against is care
I~essness aud inadvsrtsnce in the repeal o
statutes and it would seem that the right t.
prosecute criminals is as valuable to thu
State, as the right of action to an individual
and a loss of this right much more grave il
its consequences. The language 4" wheneve
a statute is repealed that is when an
{" statute is repealed 4" is broad enough an,
would embrace every statute, civil and Grim
inaI, unless otherwise restricted.
The language "psnding actions an
" causes Of action" &c, will, in strictnes
: apply to civil actions. Did the legislator
use it IN this narrow and limited sense? I
looking into the older books it will be fOun
: that Coke, for instance, diverts actions int
civil and and criminal and Jacob and other
make the same distinction. Bowler follow
. the old authors in his late elaborate woI
and this is the current Of the books. 1t
not to be presumed that all Of the membe,
: Of the Legislature we're ignorant Of the book
e and their language as applied to this sublec'
! nor does it appear by an examination Of Of
. statutes, that the words action al
GO causes Of action are SO used as to app
. only to civil actions.
= It will be found that at the session fOlloV
? Jug the act Of 1856, the Legislature repeal'
and amended the burglary law without al
saving clause; Fndthat still latsri it repeal
I and amended another section Of the Grimm
! law, and annexed 3 saving, and that IN CIV
statutes the repeating acts have sOmetim
= purported to save causes of action and SON
times have not.
n The question is not free from doubt, B
4 the mischiefs are so great, and the langua
r Of the act Of ffty-six, so broad that on t
whole I think this case falls within its seoI
{, Motion Overruled.
"a B. WHITE, PrOsecut'g
3, Attorney for the Sta
st 9 L ADa,ro TO- nafonoo