Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1903-06-13


ton 6SS of the compiled laws OF New
Mexico as hereinbefore quoted. II
will be observed that said last men.
toned section provides; that amy va.
cancics that may hereafter occur In
/ the board Of coInty commissioners of
any county by reason Of death. resig-
nation. removal or otherwise. shall be
filled by appointment by the COVER
nor" In the case at bar the govern
or could not I'll by reason Of a va
cancy occurring by death resignation
or removal. There is not mentioned
the filling Of vacancies caused by leg
lative enactment. unless Il IS implied
IN tho word otherwise" The duty
of defining the word otherwise" as
used by the legislature. Is imposed
upon US. We might inquire why the
legislative power delegated to the gov.
ernor the authority 10 fill vacancies az
ell. Certainly the legislature would
not have delegated such power had
there been vacancy occurring while
the legislature was in session. The
sessions of the Legislature being limit.
ed by law to sixty days. that leaves
the balance OF two years in which no
vacancy could he filed unless such
power TO MI had been delegated to
some person or persons. II no pro.
vision had been made by the legislat
i've poyer to fll vacancies. could they
have been fllled?. Yes: by the legis.
lative power. and by Il only. II the
legislature intended that any vacancy
that may occur shall be flied by ap.
pointment by the governor who would
It specifically point out vacancies
caused by death, resignation or r.
moval? It would be serious charge
against the legislative intelligence that
II meant any vacancy that might oc-
cur shall be filled by appointment by
the governor. after employing the Ian
guage II did II the word otherwise"
is to be construed tc mean ANY va.
cancy." then the words, caused by
reason of death, resignation or remov.
nj" were surplussage and must stand
for naught, because they are included
IN the words "any vacancy" We be.
lieve II to be universal rule of con.
struction that when general words fol.
low particular and specific words, the
general words are confined, in mean.
ing. to the things of like kind and ma
! turc designated by the specific words.
Sutherland on Stat. Const sec.
2Gs:
Jensen v. State. 10 N. w Rep.
37S CWis).
State v. Dennison, SO N. w. Rep.
| 3S3 (Neb).
| In the Wisconsin case. supra. an
| indictment was found under a section
OF the law which provided, 'if any
| tavern keeper or other person shall
sell. give away, or barter any intoxi-
| eating liquors on the first day of the
week. commonly called Sunday, or on
the day OF the annual town meeting. or
| the annual election, such tavern keep
er or other person so offending. shall
! he deemed guilty OF misdemeanor. "
The words ''or other person" following
the words tavern keeper would
seem to have been used in the very
broadest sense. The indictment
charged the defendant with having
sold liquor on Sunday in violation OF
this statute, without changing his oc.
| cupation. The lower court held that
the words "or other person" included
any and all persons The supreme
court of Wisconsin, however. in con
! STRUNG this section of the law said
| THE words tavern keeper indi-
! Gated very clearly the class of persons
| against whom the act was aimed, an6
| the general words, other persons
must under the familiar rule. noscitur
| a socis, he taken to mean a similar
class OF persons and not to be eX-
/ tended so as 10 include all persons,
/ and cite a long list of authorities In
support of such construction. They
further say the words tavern keeper
rs used IN this statute, clearly means
person a part AT least of whose
business is to sell intoxicating
liqours." and apply the rule above
quoted "The words other persons
must be held TO mean persons whose
business either In whole or in part Is
to sell such drinks" In the Nebraska
case, supra, Dennlson was indicted
under section 225 Of the criminal code
| which is as follows: III any person
shall open or establish as
owner or otherwise, any lottery or
game of chance In this state etc,
The indictment charged that Donnson
opened and established a lottery on
game OF chance within the state After
the jury was sworn, defendants attor
ney objected TO the introduction OF any
testimony for the reason that the In
dictment did not state a crime, he
cause Il did not allege that Dennison
opened and established a lottery as
owner, or In some similar capacity
The objection TO the introduction OF
testimony was sustained, and the de
fendant was discharged. Under a rule
OF practice in Nebraska, the prosecut
ing attorney may file exceptions In the
supreme court to the rule OF the lower
court, for the purpose OF having the
law settled and il was done In this