The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-07-18


preuaCon that leads 10 an abSurdlty ough
10 De rejected. And third, "a tmni
wl1lI the lnteiltlon Is within the statute
tnougn not within the letter; and "a thing
not WITHIN the ietter 1t not within tht
statute unless WITHIN the intention. 1h'
real intention, when accurately ascertain
Gu, Will anyways prevail over the Htera-
'IiSe vi '.iu 'erinS'
In the AloreGht case, 8 VI. APP, 5l4;
me court IN different form reannounced
| Ine substance OF the rules above we, quoted
III thau case the court salu: Inns pur'
pose (meamng the legislative purpose OF
lntentl so manifest, can not De ulsre'
Safded IN the search tor the proper RUE
OF construction, but must be gwen eHect
TO unless quallhed or restricted Dy some
potent provision OF the law rendering q
contrary construction OF the law lmpera-
tive. Ii a reasonable construction OF tne
language would tend to ettectuate TINS
purpose, and another construction equaIly
as reasonable would have contrary
tendency, under the well eStapllsned
canons of construction, courts should not
hesitate in choosing the former 10 the eA-
cluSion of the latter. The INTENTION ne
quently controls the express language III
the construction of statutes.
As stated in Bishop on written laws,
saction 50 mage GIG. courts will endeavor
to shape THE meaning of "a statute that 1t
can be neither eluded nor ITS purposes de-
feated. And in section 81 OF the same
book, page 64, it is said: Even III op-
position to the strict letter, the clear pur-
pose of the Legislature as apparent ON
an inspection of 1.-THE statute itself VIII be
carried out"
It has been repeatedly held that the
conjunction "and' will be read as "or,"
and "or'' as sand" when the sense OBJ
viousIy so requires, and this in plain cases,
cused. Bishop on Written Laws. section
243. A MISSIONER. for example. IN the
name of q. person or corporation which can
be corrected by other parts of the statute
will be corrected in the Interpretation. for
courts will look into the entire enactment
and compare part with part. H., section
244 To the same effect is Brooks VS..
Hicks. 20 Tex, G66: Holmes VS.. Casey,
81 n. Y, 800; Chase VS.. r. r, Co, 2j y.
Y. 500: Sedgwick on STATUTORY CG,nstruc-
ton. I'D. 225. ct Sec: Potter's DWarris
on STATUTORY Construction, DID. ia, ct seq.
1t is clear from the authorities above
cited that the court of criminal appeals
correctly held the adt of 1891 to be valid,
and that it therefore repealed the act of
1889 which authorized prize fights to he
licensed.
Tho validity If +bo oo+ in o,,ost;o, l.
NOT offac+oJ h., tbo ro,,;S;o, 80 sc 4iLo Hn5n
IF If he connoGod An ot tho W., ii Tndo on
hracing tba act Of 800 T,oS M SSod a tnr
tha Penoi ODD r-oS ,od ", the " "n.et
t;on VII; T'' no+ ne Wf.s ",lopouI t"1 H"Ia
inst tbn SAM, nc ;f ~ bol t ,~nsoJ 49,
Rmt Do nnt ooo W + i,.a ~ ns1 S;;I I'll
wos loSt nJonHnd In Ui,,~. b;m1, O 4,o
,.o ,uo " t,In M T;ii TI Ii,inM .olJ
~ Ioo,isI ~ IN ti Tpue p1 &C.,
Al al , 1,ot ", f.,pT-orJs rTba G;";l Sodo
nnSsod on AZ SorJ of imr;l on,d Az
ponoI Cndo o, tho 9th Na,;+i 1',e WIZ rn
ie et,"d IN VI tme D. N, ~ t,.,, "f f
tbo t II nGnmS ,ne o n tbot
,,a;+ho an t,,,s;t,,tnd r,onid ho IN nefoot ",.
SsoI oi STAGES OF
Ia%iSIativn co 1 'T nnt i The 10 SoWS had
,o1n;nod p,t a., l,nforo e+o+o5 fbo+ ;s
en IO, al Cl,Uv
that II, ISo1 tbn ~ ,n i fo
t i,,'' onno;nI,ont of 70 w.
,4. t,p INV t,r+ Of tho Stn+n Tbo;n H.,
80 ~ Io;Ir, sJtotnd i, tio a. ,,I.o,,iJ
;r,,,r e., tlo;', atSS,,ofmtnoon,ts ISoo acts of
: On i'i 10 ~ ~
~ -. S,.I,o,.;,n5 u" W - 49, 49,
rl 1or, o U. 90 ohom%o nv W no nid
no nvoo,,t 20 oo,.ant eT;dn , oiornoa nr
t,r,,o.a o,,.n,., Sop.tin of +ba
~ en-,
do
t.r aii une ~ ~ ST.
% e S7o TaL W. o5 ne, o,,tbotT 70
uoeS 81 so ,''ru ~ q" bod boon
2 I;ntoio coy IA, ,nIn ,IoinIr Wit
taT INC y" Of nnrSo cn,Id pnt taka COO
lt, VI CouiSt, oou.lu ~ Ia. ,ni
I4aee ~ a,,S5 ho ~
i'''4i, a.9 IN ,''iss;n,,nrs IA tbn;r
yunJ ''o n, ro,o,,tod 40 tTo Trontvtbird
oo,I t,.o TRI,a+ hoJ, foi,nd for Snnoa
~ odrt NJ, oi,. ro,,n,,t II dos mnt
seon, 70 n o W. boon IN ,anL wrov nctJ mon
Snrnr ~ tho session ~ "f ttat hodv HE
tr+,,o,7, fn,,.tl, ion; slo ti,ro ~" l. shown nv
lo mhnr| no%o III az tho oct Of 1SSG
,Io,,tod tha reno,,t az tho cnmmissiourrs ~
roo 10 and ,I onnnintaJ cndif;ar wbosa min.
n;,roI and onlI d,Itv in 60 fa,. as tha mes
t;dm a. i' iSS ui, S concnrned was tn odinst
t I' ontS of tha Twnntr -third and Twantv-
fnn,.tb Ie@iSinltnras 70 the wnrl, Of tEe
i hon, nj Si6%arS nrevionsIv done and to
sunerintend the nublication of the new
codes read the proofs. etc. The codifer
had no authority TO omit ANY statute re-
healed prior NO the session of the Twenty
third legislature. 1t must be clear, there
fore th9lt the intention of THE legislature,
as manifested by these two acts, was, not
TO pass "a new system of laws, but only
to reawange, collate and continue the old
system No other construction admissi-
BILE. But if any doubt existed upon the
subject it should be removed by refer
once to ,Snction 10 of the final title of the