The Birmingham age-herald., 1902-12-17
Mr. Lane's Authority.

lieve they are conclusive of the matter in hand.
 Mr. Lane's Authority.
 "Mr Lane, representing as I under stand it. the proprietors of the fruit stands, furnished me with the follow ing authorities:
 "Wrights heirs vs. Ware 55 Ala. 555; Sec. 220, Art. P, title corporations of the new constitution; state ex rel, etc, vs. Stiles, Judge, etc., 121 Ala, 3G6; Montgom- cry vs. National B. & L. Co.,, 10s Ala, 9S6; L. & N. R. R. Go. vs. Mobile. Jack son and Kansas City railroad, 124 Ala, 167.
 q do not believe however, the precise point has ever been decided in this state, nor have I been able to find. after thor ough search, that any other state has done so. The decided case nearest approx imating the case at hand which I have been able to obtain is Horn vs. the state, 10 s. P. Rep. 297. This is a Georgia case, butunfortunately none of the facts are set out in the decision, it being memo- randum decision. It seems in this case lntIc WaO boWl HUI PoA oNSH piAo ehh amendatory act passed after the incor- poration. granting new power to the cor poration; after this a third act was passed which did not refer to the amenda- tory act and contained nothing to show that it was a revision of the former acts or exhaustive of the subject, but simply re-enacted all the provisions of the act of is,oo ufoc hold thai fba amendatory act was not repealed This was decided on December 20, 1901.
 'In considering the matter in hand let us first take up the concluding paragraph of the last chapter and find how far the repeating clause extends. In the case of Ogborne vs. Ogbournes administrator 50 Ala, page 619, Chief Justice Brickel says: The pealing clause of the act of 1872 is general-of Fall laws and parts of laws controvening this act;'' and it does not operate an appeal of an existing statute, relating to the same subject matter, not in conflict with the provisions of the act. It Is merely a legislative declaration of the necessary effect of the act, if the clause had not been inserted. Subse- quent statutes not inconsistent with or repugnant to former statutes, are not a repeal of the former, unless it is clear the subsequent statute was intended to prescribe the only rule which should govern the subject This leads to the conclusion that if the last charter re- peals the fruit stand act it must be a re- peal by implication. Repeals by im- plication are not favored in the law. Hurr vs Seymour, 76 Ala, 270; Jack son vs. the state 76 Ala, 26; Abernathy. vs. the state, 76 Ala, All. There are many other authorities to this effect in Ala bama, but I deem these sufficient as be- ing the leading cases outlining this prin- ciple. So that If both the fruit stand act and the last charter can stand with out direct conflict, and unless the last charter is intended to revise the subject matter of the fruit stand act as we'll as the prevous charter, and intended as a substitute for both acts, the fruit stand act will still be in effect. Applying the reasoning found in the Ogbourne case, supra; the case of Montgomery vs. Na- tional Building and Loan association, and the Stiles case furnished by MT. Lane, and the reasoning found in the following cases: vove vsh Porter, 9S Ala, 3S4; States ex rel Waring vs. M. & A. of Mobile, "A Ala, 7O1; Johnson vs. the State, 31 Sou. Rap, 493; also I. Dillon no Municipal Corporations, s5-Ss.
 Conclusion.
 q am led to the conclusion, taking into consideration the well-known principle of law that forms, dates, contents, sub feet matter, circumstances, effects and the reason and spirit of the law may be consulted in endeavoring to arrive at the will of the law giver, 20 Ala, 54, Part 266, that the board of mayor and aldermen of Birmingham mas authority to license fruit stands on the streets. It appears to me that 1t was the intention of the legislature in passing the fruit stand act to give power to the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham which was outside of it's charter power, and in addi- tion to the charter. In giving the city new charter I hardly believe the legis- lature took this into consideration, when consulting and revising the old charter and amendments thereto. It cannot be said that the fruit stand act is in con- hiet with the charter simply because without that act the board would not have the power outlined therein, and there is no evidence in the charter of an intention to leglslate in any manner whatever on the fruit stand question.
 "This is my opinion and I would so decide it if I were sitting in judicial capacity But I must say the quest or