The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-07-29
WILSON WINS.
Fife Has No Claim to Fish and Game
Warden-Interestin Decision.
ogden, July g.

Notwithstanding Decision.
Judge Rolapp yesterday handed down
his decision in the case of Wilson vs.
Fife, involving the office of fish and
game warden for Weber county. The
decision goes to the root of statutory
| construction, and will have an impor-
tant bearing on numerous other cases
| The apDointee of the present county
! commissioners is decreed to have nc
right to the office, but the judge says
the county court did right in following
the exact letter of the law.
Following is the substance of the
6ecision
In 1896, and after the act entitled fish
and game was passed, one Wilson was
appointed fish ana game warden for
this county. In 1897 and after the pas
sage of an act entitled fish and game,
one Fife was appointed to the same
Office for this county. Wilson now
claims that his term of Office is for
two years, commencing with the year
1896, while Fife claims that by the pas
sage of the act of 1897 Mr.. Wilson
was legislated out of office, and he
(F'ife) is entitled to the office.
1t appears that both of the acts for
protection of fish, game and birds.
Nearly every section of the act of
1895 is re-enacted in the act of 1897,
with some minor amendments Dartic-
ularly affecting the length of time dur
ing which fishing and hunting may be
INDUCED in. Section of the act pro-
vides: After their first session after
the passage of this act the county COM
missioners shall appoint a county fish
and game warden, whose term of office
shall be two years and until his sue
cessor shall be appointed and qualified.
Each act repealed all other acts
in conflict with the act then passed,
and the act of 1896 specifically repealed
chapter rs of the session laws of 1894
and the act of 1897 specifically repealed
chapter So of the session laws Of 1896
THE SOLE QUESTION,
therefore, for consideration is whether
or no as a matter Of law the legislature
did repeal that portion of the section
of the act of 1896 which provided for
the appointment of a fish and game
warden. 1t is conceded that if the leg
islature of 1897 did so repeal it that
the respondent is entitled to the office;
if no repeal was actually made, the
complainant is entitled to the office.
am clearly of the opinion that there
was no such repeal.
Where there is an express re-enact-
ment of an existing statute and a re-
enactment of it at the same time or a
repeal and a re-enactment of por-
ton of it, the re-enactment neutralizes
the repeal so far as the old law con-
tinued in force. 1t operates without
interruption where the re-enactment
takes effect at the same time. Offices
are not lost; corporate existence is not
ended, statutory rights are not defeated
nor criminal charges affected by such
repeal and re-enacting OF the law on
which they respectively depend Suth-
erland on stat. Conn. sec. 134. a num-
Der of cases are then cited in the de-
cision to bear out this ruling. Among
them is the case of Bear Lake & River
Irrigation company and ogden Water
works company VS.. Garland, decided in
the supreme court of the United States
Oct. 10, 1850
OF course if the legislature had abol-
ished the Office of fish and game war
den and had created another office then
the complainant would clearly have
been legislated out of office, and any
appointment made subsequently would
have been the proper appointee because
there can be no doubt that the legis-
lature has the power to abolish an
Office at any time. and that no person
has vested right in any Office, but
that is not attempted in this enact
ment of the legislature of 1897, and it
is even possible that the legislature
may delegate the power of removing
from office to a subordinate body, but
that also does not appear to have been
the intention of the legislature in en-
acting the law of 1897
am compelled, therefore. TO hold
that while the
COUNTY COURT DID RIGHT
in following the exact letter Of the law
under the decision the law of 1897 did
not repeal the law of 1896, and the COM
plainant Wilson must therefore be
continued in office. the respondent Fife
not having any right thereto.