Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1868-05-28


poration and the inhabitants there
Of" but which also limits the pow
er Of the council to the passage Of
sneh ordinances as are mot incon-
slstent with the laws Of this State, "
and because Of which limitation, and
because the ordinance in that case
did not make the exception made
by the act 'for the prevention Of
certain immoral practices" passed
in 1881, the Supreme Court held
that the city Of Canton was void 1t
lis true that the Court, independent
! OF the clause limiting the power of
| tie council, held Chat the same lin
Iitation would have been implied
land that an ordinance in .eon1ict
with the laws and policy Of the
State would be void without such
\ express limitation. But twas not
necessary fort Court in that case
to make such ruling, though proE-
er' So I39v' sst ,,a3masgoD
In Thompson as, Noaht Vernon,
1lth o. S. r, 6SS, the ordinance
fcomplained OF was gencral,- ITO pre-
vent the sale, &c, iu any quantity.
lofspirituous or Intoxicating liquors,
wine, cider, over thirty days from
the press, ale porter, beer or Other.
fermented beverage Of any kind or
description, whatever to be drank
Sin a tavern, grocery, bazaar, eating
house, drug store, Office, shop, sa-
loon, stall, booth OF tent, Or other
Hplace Of public resort,9 &C., &c. -
and to prevent the sale Of such liqal
ors, DC, in less quantity than one
! gallon. The defendent was charg-
Jed with selling "a certain liquor or.
beverage prohibited and forbidden"
by said ordinance ''in less quantity
than a gallon" &C., and the Court
held, and properly enough, that the
ordinance was void, upon the prin-
ciple laid down in Canton Us. MIST,
being inconsistent it'll the act "to
provide against the evils resulting
from the sale Of Intoxicating iiqu-
ors in the State Of Ohio" passed
MAY 1st, 1854. "1
But to recognizing the authority
Of these cases and Of the principle
upon which they proceed to the
fullest extent, we do not think they
apply to the case at bar, Here the
ordinance is passed in pursuance of
the authority given by the 25th sec
tipn of the "act to provide for the
organization Of cities and incorpo-
rated villages passed May 3d,
1852, which expressly authorizes
the municipal corporation ''to reg
uate or prohibit ale and porter
houses, and which imposes no
limitation upon the exercise of this
power 1t is said, however, that |
this section and the ordinance |
under it, are in conflict with the
.proviso Of the eighth section Of the |
liquor law, which was passed May |
1st, 1854, and is therefore sabSileR- |
tho and by implication repealed
We think otherwise. Repeats by
implication are not favored and i'll
two statutes, that apparently differ,
may be reeonciled, they will be, and
both maintained, and moreover it
may be doubtful whether under the
Constitution which requires an
amendatory or reyisory act or sec
ton to contain the whole act origi-
nal to be repealed; whether laws
can be repealed by implication.-
But waving this, although the liqu-
or law was passed after the origi-
nal section %, aforesaid, the latter |
was amended and repealed March /
9th, 1867, without in any respect /
noun, Y ing e,e e'sse es',,Se 'u','o, ~, lS t,
shops and houses; the Legislature
mus ''llnis.aNs9iy ~ il'io,'V y. Siip
by the liquor law of 1854, and that !
ll ''';e a.; .S,t 49,
ssrueel = TSS TS faot ~ tbat , tlis m
Sie,V~,'. !,I.,,,n ,,,sa@,aStl,. S IA TSH,; St5 4
1853. ] amended and repealed the /
Sth section of the liquor law--not
altering IN any respect the proviso, I
does hot initiate against, butt
strenpthens this view. The 25thE
section Of the city and village act
and tha 9Th section Of the 1iouor |.
law mnst therefore Be regarded as
.botb IN force as being consistent
with. and as modifying each other
and in considering them togetnOe1r, gstiO1 (
we find no dlheI!ty IN reconclIlhg
them and sustaining t1ls 9golnance, sl,