The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1870-05-21
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Former Criminal Laws not Re-
pealed by Rays Revised Stat
uteS.

Mr.. Justice Howe, on the 1lth inst
delivered the opinion of the Supreme
Court in this case, as follows:
The State VS.. William E. Brewer, ap
peal from the District Court, parish o
Tensas.
The defendant was indicted in Octo
Der, 1869, for manslaug ghter. under the
third section of March Is, 1855, rela
tive to crimes and ofenses. On the
twenty-6tth April, 1870, he moved tc
quash the indictment on the ground
that the statute under which he was in.
dicted had been repealed, and that this
repeal operated his discharge and "legis.
lative pardon" The motion was over.
ruled, the prisoner pleaded not guilty,
and was tried and convicted, He then
moved in arrest Of judgement, assinging
the same reasons as those on which the
motion to quash was based This mo-
ton was denied, and having been SEN
fenced to Imprisonment and hard labor,
he has appealed to this court.
The question presented for our decis.
ion is whether section third of the act
of 1866, relative to crimes and offenses
was, on the first day of April 1870, re-
pealed by the act of the Legislature
number ninety-six, of the laws of 1870.
which went into effect on the day last
named.
| The revisory Legislation which We are
thus called upon to interpret was initia-
ted by act No. 81 of 1868, entitled "An
act to provide for the revision of the
statutes of the State, of a general char
acter," and the objects to be attained
are therein stated to be these:
"That the public statutes of this
State should be revised, their language
simplifed, their incongruities corrected,
their Deficiencies supplied, and the
whole arranged in order and reduced
to one connected text, with the view to
their adoption as the revised statutes of
this State, to the end that all may know
the law"
The work thus provided for appears
to have been completed during the pres.
ent year, and was improved by the Leg
islature in the act No. Sc, already re-
ferred to, which act contained the fol-
lowing repeating clause
That all laws or parts of laws con-
trary to, or conflict with the provisions
of this act, and all laws and parts OF
laws on the same subject matter, except
what may be contained in the Revised
Civil Code and Code of Practice of the
present session, be, and the same are
hereby repealed, except the thirty y-third
section of an act entitled an act for the
punishment of crimes and misdemeanors,
approved May 4, IS05,' and that in so
far as there may be any conflict between
the provisions of this act and any pro-
vision of said Revised Civil Code and
Code otnPractice, that said code shall
be held aud taken as the law governing,
and that this act take effect on the first
day of April, A. D., 1870. 1t will at
once appear that this revisory Legislation
is, so far as this case is concerned,
identical in character with that which
was set on foot in 1854 and completed
in 1856, and we naturally inquire what
were the decisions of this court in ref
erence to the peculiar repeating clause
so often repeated in the system Of 1855"
In the case of Holmes VS.. Wiltz, IL
An, 439, it was decided by majority of
the court that an Interpretation of a
statute, which must lead to consequences
mischievous and absurd is inadmissible,
if the statute is susceptible of another
Interpretation, whereby such conseq uen-
ces may be avoided, that the legislative
inattention must be honestly sought af-
ter and faithfully executed, if not in
conflict with paramount law; and in
cases like this. its meaning must be
sought, not merely in the words of the
statute itself, but in its subject matter,
the history Of the legislation thereupon,
in the purpose Of the law, the reason
of its enactment, and the evil it ia
sought to remedy.
It was further held that the statute
under consideration in that case, con.
tanning the following repeating clause
"That all laws contrary to the provis-
ions of this act, and all laws ON the
same subject matter except what is con.
tanned in the Civil Code and Code OF
Practice, be repealed" did not repeal
the provisions contained in the statute
itself, but, on the contrary, continued
them that the statute was, in fact, but
a cropping together in one act of parts
Of pre-existing laws, and that by it the
Legislature merely said: Here is a
condensed statement Of all the law now
in force relative to the mode of appoint.
ment, term Of service, amount and con.
dition Of the bond. ETC., of the Recorder
of Mortgages for the parish Of orleans
all else upon these specified matters is
repealed
In the case Of Stafford VS.. His Credi
tors, II An. p. 47o, in which the opin
ion Of the court was delivered by the
member who had dissented in the case
Of Holmes, the question was more close
ly related to the one at bar, for it con.
cerned . statute highly penal, and
the imprisonment Of the appellant. The
court said !" In the case Of the State or
the relation Of Holmes VS.. Wiltz we late
lv held that the repeating clause appen.
ded to the revisory acts Of 1866 did MOI
repeal such pre-existing statutory pro
Visions IS were re-enacted in the -eviso
| Iry statute
In the case Of the State va. Clay, II
An. p. 43l. criminal case, the cour,
| said - An examination Of the act d
1855 On this subject burning, and !
comparison of ii with the former laws
will show that il was the intention o.