The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-11-01

A.~
 Tn construing several different sec- tions of the Code which relate to the same subject matter. 1t is necessary to read them all together ana to, interpret them in the light of each other. (M & cravfprd V. Tyson, le Ala. 2ss).
 sTt h evident that the section of the Code h1ing the klength of the term
 (s55l). and the section fixing the begin
 ninr of the term (3o54). and the section
 nxinr the date of election t1S7s), are all cognate or referable to one general subject No one of the sections is
 wholly inteliiefble unless considered in the light of the others. Keeping them all in view. think the meaning of the section nxing the beginning of the terx is more clearly perceived.
 when it was Incorporated Into
 held on the first Monday in August.
 Tts meaning is the same as If had
 said Judges of probate shall hold their
 offices for six years from the third day
 of November next after their election on the first Monday in August. The
 section of the Code fixing the election
 In August Is repealed by implication bv the act of ninth day of October.
 1903. fixing the time of the election in November. When a part of a statute fs repealed, and 1t becomes necessary to construs the remaining part. the repealed portion of the statute may be looked to in ascertaining the meaning Of what remains. tAtty. Gen. V. Lamploueh, : Eng. Law Repts., Ex.. D., as7; Savings Bank V. Collector. 3 waii (N. s.), 4s5. SIS; Ex parte Crow Dog. s10s t.. s.. s5s. 561:. Ogden V.
 Foreman. 20 Utah. ga. 1o1). Applying this principle to the question in hand. 1t leads to the conclusion that the term begins on the third day of Mo- venber next after the first Monday in
 August of the year of the election, and not on the third day of November next after the election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year of the election. It is of nol consequence that the succeeding term will have begun before the election of a successor. The Legislature could. and did, fix the date of the election subsequent to the date Of the begin ming of the term. A hiatus in the offices because Of this situation is pre- vented by the provision in the consti- hutton and statute that the ifcumbents should hold, not only for six years. \ bat also until stccessors are elected and qualified.
 A different line of reasoning leads to the same results. The date of the be- ginning of the term of judges of pro- bate was first fixed by statute in the present Code: No such statute Is found In the Codes of 18s6 and 1875. It was simply dsclaratory of the stat us in respect of the matter as 1t ex- isted under the Constitution. The Con- stitution of 1868 declared the term to be six years. (Article VI, Section 12.) An ordinance adopted by the Conven- ton of 1868 declared that the term should begin on the date of the next general election under that Constitu- tion. Acts 1863. p. 1so. Section 4.l The next general election thereundes was the third day Of November, 1868. The Constitution of 1875 declared the length of the term to be six years, the same as the Constitution of 1868, but did not change the date of It's begin- ming. It changed the, eieection from November to August. but provided in the schedule that the terms of the in- cumbents should not thereby be short- ened. The Constitution Of 1901 fixes the length of the term at six years. the same as the two preceding Consti- tutions, but 1t is silent as to the date of its beginning. So, doubtless, if there had never been a statute enacted upon the subject the term would begin November 3, next. I doubt very much if the Legislature could extend for the space of year the term of an office fixed in the Constitution, and the be- ginning (and of necessity the endingl of which had been defined in a preced- ing Constitution. (23 A. and E. Enc. of Law, 2 Ed, page 40e on cases cited)
 (s.) It iS held In the cases of Brewer v. King 63 Alabama 51i, 515, and Hughes V. Montgomery. 66 Ala bama POI, POT, that the sufeties on the bond of a public officer are bound only for the fixed term. and for such req sonable time thereafter, varying with the circumstances of the case. as may be necessary for a successor to qual. fly. Upon the authority of these cases advised that in my opinion justices of the peace should give new bonds. They hold over for a period of more than two and a half months. do not think 1t could have been in con- at the time the sureties ex. ecuted the bond of d justice of the peace that the officer should hold over for such a length of time. But the l case Is different with the judges Of probate. They will hold over for only | a few days. think that would be | may be necessary for a successor to l qualify, and that the present sureties | are bound for this short interim. It | Is necessary for the incumbents to | give new bonds. |
 Very respectfully.
 Massey wilson.