Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1876-05-24
IMPORTANT .LIQUOR La W DE
CISION

interest ana sustaining the position
that the law is still in force Tor the
punishment of such an ollense:
Motion to quash indictment. Tho
indictment in this case is founded on
tho first section OF the act of Assembly
g. the sth of May, 1854, commonly
called the "Buckalcw Act" IL charges
the defendant with having wilfully
furnished intoxicating drinks by sale,
gilt and otherwise, to one Harry Rol.
and, o person of known incorporate
habits, Tor use rs beverage. The de-
iendant has moved to qnash the in
dictmcnt on the ground that the Soc
ton Of the Act of Assembly upon
which IL is based is repealed by the
Act of assembly of April 18th, 1875,
which repealed the aLocal Option
Law" 1t is contended that as the
seventh section Of said act tas provid-
ed that the person selling or delivering
Intoxicating drinks to person of in.
temperate habits shall be liable TO be
proceeded against for damages, and
that as the eleventh section OF the same
act declares il to be unlawful to sell to
minors or to persons vsibly affected
BY Intoxicating drinks being offences
enumerated in the first section of said
act Of the Sth of May, 1854, and upon
conviction Of which different punish
ment is prescribed in the act of April,
18th, 1875, from that provided in the
act of May stb, 1851, that the latter is
repealed by the former If not express.
ly, at least by necessary implication.
When two statutes are so fatty rcpug-
nant that both cannot bo executed,
and we are obliged to choose between
them, the latter is always deemed a
repeal Of the earlier. But whenever
two acts can be made 10 stand togeth-
er, it is the duty of the Court TO give
both Of them full effect. Even when
they are seemingly repugnant, they
must, If possible, have such con
struction that one may not be repeal
Of the other, unless the latter one con.
tains negative words or the intention
to repeal is mado manifest by some in
telligible form of expression. Brown
VS.. County Commissioners, . Harris
43. Neither does the lay favor repeal
by implication. Lord Coke says it has
been confined to repeating as little as
possible OF preceding statutes (ll Rep
63). The principle prevails where tho
statutes are penal, and where the hui
manity Of the law would plead for an
other construction (6 Rep l9). These
principles have always been followed
in Pennsylvania.
"An act of Assembly will not be con.
strncd to repeal by implication an OK.
press enactment unless there be clear
and strong Inconsistency between
them" Huston j. Street VS.. Common.
wealth 6 W, & s. 200. Bank VS.. Com
monwealth 10 Barr 44s. In McCool
VS.. Smith Black y. S. Rep. 40. Jus
tice Swayne said, "a repeal by implca-
tion is not favored, the leaning of the
Courts is against the doctrine, II II be
possible to reconcile the two acts Of
the Legislature together" Where a
late statute is absolutely rcpugnant to
a former ono, only in part, il repeals
the former only SO far as the repug-
nancy extends, and leaves all the re-
mainder in force. Van Rensselaer, VS..
Snyder 0 Barb 30s. The principle to
be extracted from these authorities is,
that whore the latter statute is upon
the same subject matter with the for
mer, and provides some new qualifca.
tions, or notifications, so that il is i'm.
possible both should be in force and
executed, then the latter repeals the
former, but if by any reasonable con-
struction both can have concurrent
efficacy, then both must stand. Guided
by these rules of construction, We en-.
counter no difficulty in sustaining this
indictment, and We should hesitate
long before blotting out from the stat
ute books one Of the most benefcent
and wholesome provisions of the Buck.
alew law unless satisfied of its repeal.
As was said by Agnew c. J. in Nc
Cullough VS.. the Commonwealth, IL
p. F. Smith, page 81, in speaking Of
the act Of May 9th, 1854, 'viewing the
habitual drunkard as poor captive to
appetite, enthralled by slavery too
strong for reason and duty, it comes to
his relief by striking down the hand
that puts the cup to his lips" Is there
then such an irreconcileable repugna-
cy between the seventh and eleventh
sections OF the act OF April 18th, 1876,
and the first section of the act of May
Sth, 1854, as to require us to declare
that the latter act abrogates the for
mer. We think there is no conflict
whatever between said acts, so far us
relates to the specific oifense charged
in the indictment. The seventh sec.
ton of the act Of April 18th, 1875, has
reference solely to civil proceedings
giving the relatives of an intemperate
person remedy in damages. 1t was
clearly not intended to take away the
former law, but was merely auxiliary
to and in aid Of It's purposes, and was
evidently cumulative. Neither is there
any inconsistency between the eleventh
section and the first section Of said
acts 80 far as the offence charged in
this indictment is concerned. The first
section of May 5, 1854, enumerates
four distinct offences, for which an in.
dictment can be laid. Wilfully
furnishing intoxicating drinks, by sale,
gift or otherwise, to persons Of known
incorporate habits, for use as bower.
age, Wilfully furnishing the
same to a minor. Third-Wiliully
furnishing the same 10 an insane per.
son. Fourth-wilfully furnishing the
same TO q person when drunk or in
toxicated. Each Of these Is distinct
and separate offence, and on indictment
could bc preferred for each. The
eleventh section of the act of April IL,
1875, declares ii to be on offence TO sell
to minors or TO persons visibly affect
cd by intoxicating drinks, and pre-
scribes mode of punishment for these
offences, different from that annexed
TO the same offences IN the Act Of May
stb, 1854. So far there is repugnan
cy between the two acts, and as 10
these two offences, the Act of Assem-.
bly,, of April H. 1875, has repealed the
Act of May 9Th, 1854. But as to the
offence of furnishing intoxicating
liquors to men of Incorporate habits
or to insane persons, there is no con.
flict between tho two acts, but both
can stand together and be consistent,
ly reconcilcd. 1t is evident that the
Act Of Assembly Of April 18th, 1875,
was inconsideratcly and carelessly
drawn, otherwise there would not have
been these ipconsistenGipa between the
two nnta anb IA Ia n ,notto, 20 .,u,,,,;.c