The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-05-12

The courts decision In the case OF Rob
ert w. Burbank v. the town council OF
South Kingstown was handed down to-
day. The gist of the rescript is the over
ruling of the demurrer made by Mr..
Bosworth to the y%etition for a
new election. The final arguments
were heard last Saturday before the full
bench. The decision refers simply to the
town of South Kingstown and Is eQuiva-
lent to ordering a new election in that
town. The rescript, written by Justice
Rogers is as follows:
Washington. &C.
Supreme Court.
Robert W. Burbank. Attorney General rs. Totcn
Council Of South Ktngstoton. Miscellaneous pc
tition number 10. Rogers. j.
The writ Of prayed for il to
compel the town council OF South Kings
town to order a new election of senator
and representative under the provisions
of section Is. chapter no. Public Laws
of Rhode Island. That chapter was
passed at the january session, 1883, and
Is entitled, San act Incorporating
the district OF NarragaDsett, II.
IL AS it's title indicates, being
applicable to the single town OF South
Kingstown and at the time of It's pass
age section Is, chapter 10. Public Stat
utes Rhode Island was In force, provid-
ing no. election Of senator and
representative in towns divided into
voting districts, district ceilings
held therein for the election of
senator and representative shall
at the time of closing the polls therein
prescribed by law stand adjourned to the
third day next from aud after the day
an opnninfah nnlaSQ fhA third 6aV falls
on Sunday or a holiday, and in that event
TO the Monday or the day following said
holiday, with like adjournment there
from, but no adjournment Or adjourn
ments shall exceed seven day S from the
first meeting.
More About the Law.
Section IS. chapter 40. provided that
IL no election shall have been made OF
senator and representative in the general
assembly or of either of them in South
Kingstown upon the day appointed by law
for any election the said town council
shall order a new election TO he held not
more than ten days from the first cleo.
lion, and SO on until an election shall be
compelled. Section Is. chapter no, then,
excepted South Kingstown by special
statute from the operation of section 1S,
chapter 10. Public Statutes, and appliel
"A different provision OF law to that term.
April 80, 1890, the general assembly. by
chapter IS Oh the Public Laws, divided
the town of Hopkinton into two voting
districts and in the following March, be-
fore a single general election had been
held, it amended section Is. chapter 10, by
chapter 923 Public Laws, for the especial
benefit of Hopkinton, by simply insert
ing therein the words. provided, how
ever, that in Hopkinton there shall be no
election held on Saturday, and ii
the third day falls on Saturday
the meeting Shall stand adjourned
from and after the day SO appointed.'
Section 2. chapter 923. was as follows
'All acts or parts of acts inconsistent
here y it'll are hereby repealed, and this
election shall take effect from and after
its passage.
Contention Of the Council.
1t is contended in behalf of tht
town council Of South Ki~ngstown,
that section 2, chapter R3.
repealed section IS, chapter 40, be.
cause the latter Is Inconsistent with the
former. 1t is a matter Of common know
ledge that there are many Seventh Day
Baptists.. so called, living in Hopkinton,
who observe Saturday as thei.
general officers and for senator and
representative falls by statute on the
first Wednesday In April, a three days
adjournment therefrom would invari-
ably fall on Saturday, q day on which the
Seventh Day Baptisfs, from principle,
perform no secular duties. Doubtless
when Chapter SS5 was passed, dividing
Hopkiuton into voting districts the third
day prohibition of chapter 10, escaped at
tention and was not thought OF until the
next general election was approach ng,
when chapter 923 was passed for its ben
eft, to remedy the difficulty.
Does Not Repeal section IL.
Does chapter 923 repeal section IS oil
chapter TO? We think not. The gen.
eral rule Of interpretation of statutes ID
that general statutes shall not repeal a
special statute unless the purpose so Ia
do is clearly manifest. City OF Provi.
dence rs. Union Railroad company, IL,
Rhode Island, 473. Very Va. school com.
mittee, I2, Rhode Island. rs. State
VS.. Champiin, g. Rhode Island, 45a
Tripp, VS.. Rhode Island, 4, Rhode Island
In the words Of Chancellor Kent,
tits an established rnle in the exposi-
ton of statutes that intention of the
law given is TO be deduced from a view oil
the whole and OF every part OF a statute,
taken and compared together. The real
intention when accurately ascertained
viii always prevail over the literal
maxims Of Interpretation Is TO discover
the true intention OF the law" tirs,
Kent's conn.,. 46i-46S.
A Former Chief Justice Quoted.
To the sime purport i the la nguage o
Chief Justice Durfee In Dandy v. Probate
court, 10. X l.: 1--WE like always in
constituting a statute to take the wore
literally. assuming that the general az
sembly have chosen such rs readily ex
press their intent.
This cannot always be done for IL some