Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1915-current, 1915-03-31
LOCAL ATTORNEYS
GIVE OPINION
tcoatinued From Page One,


the constitution Of California which
is identical with the Nevada consti.
tuition. and which declares that mo
law shall be revised or amended by
reference to its title, but In such case
the act revised, or section amended
shall be re-enacted and published at
length, as revised or amended"
Under this section of the constitu-
ton, the supreme court Of California,
held that II a section of a statute is
re-enacted 1t is totally inconsistent
with the idea that the old section
stu remains in force, or has any vital
ity for any purpose whatever. The
re-enactment creates anew the rule OF
action and ven II there was not the
slightest difference in the ~praseology
OF the two, the latter alone can be
referred to as the law, and the former
stands to all intents, as If absolutely
and expressly repealed. II the rule
IN Huffman VS.. Hall, be applied to the
situation here, then the act of 1913,
amending the act Of 1897, is now the
law Of the state, and the repeal Of the
act Of 1897, only repeats what was a
dead letter. and glove contests would
be restricted to ten rounds. But the
same court in the case of Fletcher VS..
Prather. in the same volume of the
California reports, took an opposite
view Of the law, and also an opposite
view from Sutherland, in the rule
which we have quoted from him. In
this case the court took the view that
where a section Of a statute is amend
ed, and the amendment is In such
terms that 1t takes the place of such
section, the statute in which the orig
inal section stood, as to future acts,
Is to be regarded. as If the amended
section Is incorporated therein. II
this be the rule the logical result
would be that the amendatory act of
1918, became a part of the act of
1897, In its provisions and the act
Of 1897 being repealed, the amend
ments made by the act of 1913, fell
with the act of 1897, and there is no
law on our statute books limiting glove
contests.
1t Is to be remarked, however, that
the case of Fletcher vs.. Prather, was
decided In view of a section of the
political code Of California, in which
1t was sought to make more definite
the provisions of the constitution, but
the reasoning of the court is not
based upon the proposition that this
section of the political code, is any
different in its meaning from the con-
stitution itself.
Now our W supreme court of Ne
vada, had this proposition UP to a
limited extent, in the case of Worth
ington VS. The District court, decided
In July Of last year, with reference
to amendments to the divorce law,
and Chief Justice Talbot, seemed to
lean to the reasoning of Fletcher vs.
Prather. In fact he quotes from this
case, and in the very particular, Of
the holding that the amended section
of an act takes the place of the orig |
inal section by its appropriate num-
Der in The original act, and in the
Tiedeman Case, SO Nevada Page 494;
Justice Talbot says, that this court
treated the amendment of 1875, of
section % of the marriage and divorce
act as a part of the act Of 1861, and
not as a separate act, and retired to
rbe act Of 1913, as amendatory OF Sec
ton % of the original act.
II this reasoning is borne out, then
the ~amendatory act Of 1913 restricting
glove contests to ten rounds would be
repealed by the repeal of the original
act But 1t Is to be borne in mind
that In none of the cases discussed
was the situation similar to the stu
alton here, and in all these cases the
appellate court was laboring to pre-
serve an act of the legislature, or an
amendment thereto, and not to wipe 1t
out Of the statutes. In the case of
Fletcher vs.. Prather, however, a mum.
Der of cases are cited in which Il is
held that the repeal Of the original
act carried with 1t all amendments
thereto. This proposition is also to
be pointed out, that in all the cases,
the rule is laid down that, the new
provisions OF the statute are to be
considered as having been enacted at
the time Of the amendment. In this
state Of the law, 1t Is hard to hazard
a guess as to what view the supreme
court would take of the matter, but
considerding tho policy of the courts
and to uphold legislation 1t would seem
that they may lean to keeping the
statute of 1913, on the statute books,
and that glove contests will still be
restricted to ten rounds.