Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1880-05-21
Important Decision THE following

Important DECISION The following
decision was rendered by Judges Lynch
and Bouic, on Thursday of last week, in
the Circuit Court for Frederick county:
Frank Burke on Petition-No. 291 Mis-
cellaneous Docket in the Circuit Court for
Frederick CONTEMPLATION for Habeas Cor
pus-May Term, 1880; The reator in this
case was fined one dollar and costs, by Jus
tice Henry Stokes, of Emmittsburg district,
in Frederick county, for drunkenness and
disorderly conduct upon the public streets,
and for the non-payment of said fine and
costs, was committed to the Jail of Frederick
county. The relator contends that he should
be released because the Act of $780, Chapter
"a, under which he was fined by the justice,
was repealed by the subsequent Act of 1880,
Chapter 211. The fines imposed under the
Act of 1880, Chapter "a, are to be enforced
by imprisonment, whereas, heretofore under
Sections and OF Act 40 of the Code of
Public General Laws, such fines were col
lected as debts by action in the name of the
State. The Act of 1880, Chapter "a, not
having repealed these sections of Act 40
would seem to have been in conflict with
said sections. But the Act of 1880, Chapter
21l, in express terms repeats Sections and
3 of Act 40, and enforces the collection of
such fines by imprisonment In the trial of
persons under the Act of 1880, Chapter "a,
Tor the offences therein named, Justices of
the Peace, and the Circuit Courts for the
counties have concurrent jurisdiction. The
Act of 1880, Chapter gil, provides that
when any fines or penalty Is imposed by
any Act of Assembly of this State. or by
any ordinance Of any incorporated city, &c.
such offences in any county of this State
shall be prosecuted by the arrest of the
offender, and by holding him to bail to ap-
pear in, or committing him for trial in the
Circuit Court for the county in which such
offence was committed, or by indictment in
the Circuit Court for such county for such
offence"
This Act does not, in express terms, nor
by necessary implication repeal the Act of
1880, Chapter "a.
IA later statute ON given subject, not re-
pealing an earlier one in terms, is not to be
taken as repeal by implication, unless it is
plainly repugnant to the former or unless IL
fully embraces the whole subject matter"
Gill. 154.
The Act of 1880, Chapter gil, only pro-
vides another mode of proceeding for the
trial OF large number of offences, including
those enumerated in Chapter "a.
1t is general rule, that subsequent
osneutCc, WhiCu duu dCCutlluldtlft DcnalIteS.
and institute new methods of proceeding
do not repeal former penalties and methods
proceeding ordained by preceding statutes,
without negative words.
Although then, two acts of Parliament
are seemingly repugnant, yet if there be no
clause Of non obstante ia the latter, they shall
If possible have such construction, that the
latter may not be a repeal of the former by
implication"
The same view has been taken where
powers under several acts are such as may
well subsist together" Dwarris on Statutes.
674.
These two Acts of the Legislature must
therefore, be construed together as one Act.
The Act of 1880, chapter 211, does not pre-
scribe the amount Of the fine, but provides
that if the person be adjudged guilty, &C.,
he shall be sentenced to the fine or penalty
prescribed by such Act of Assembly, that Is
by some Act other than that OF 1880, chap
ter oil.
The Act OF 1880, chapter "a, repeals sec
ton AZ, subtitle Drunkenness" Of Article
30 OF the Code Of Public General Laws
now if chapter 211 repeats chapter "a then
there is no statutory punishment for the Of
fences named in chapter "a, and in section
AZ, OF article 30 Of the Code, unless the re-
Peii vi ChaPtci "a ny operation oI law lnul-
rectly re-enacts section 40 of the Code
The Legislature could not, in this indirect
and round about way have intended to re-
peal chapter "a, and re-enact section AZ of
article 30 Of the Code.
These two acts, apparently inconsistent,
may be reconciled by constituting them as
giving to the justice of the peace, as they
really do, the power either to fine the party
and commit him TO Jail for non-payment of
the fine or to hold him to bail TO appear in the
Circuit Court for the county, as the nature
The Act of 1880, chapter "a designates
certain offences and prescribes how persons
accused Of such offcnses shall be tried and
punished if adjugedguilty, whereas the act
of 1880, chapter 2l1, IS general in It's terms
and specifics no particular offence.
~ A Il. A. =.