Opinion ID: 2151113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Can this court correct the legislative error as to numbering and construe ch. 384 as referring to sec. 450.07, Stats., rather than sec. 151.07?

Text: Ch. 384, with its references by number to other statutes left unchanged and uncorrected, is at least ambiguous in meaning and application. Exactly as appellant contends, without correction of its numbering errors, there are numbers out of sequence, fragments of sentences and penalty provisions standing alone, plus the references to a sec. 151.07, Stats., itself earlier renumbered to be sec. 450.07. Where a statute is clear on its face, there is nothing for a court to construe. [3] When it is not clear on its face as to its meaning and application, the courts will, in fact, must look to the legislative intent in construing the statute. [4] There is no dispute here as to what the legislature intended to do. In the words of appellant's brief (page 29), The intent of the legislature was to enact offenses of the possession of dangerous drugs with intent to sell, furnishing dangerous drugs, transporting dangerous drugs and use of dangerous drugs. . . . So we do not deal with what sensible legal end the legislature sought to accomplish. We deal rather with locating a sensible legal means of accomplishing that purpose. [5] Here there is no issue as to the legislative intent, and no doubt that correcting a clerical error in numbering is the only means of having the statute serve such purpose. This court has upheld the right to substitute the right word for one clearly wrong in avoiding an absurd result in construing a statute. [6] It is a less serious organ transplant to substitute the right number for one clearly wrong in effectuating an admitted legislative intent and purpose. The error in ch. 384 goes to a number used, not to substance or content. The earlier statute that created the problem, ch. 336, did not enact, amend or repeal. It renumbered. As to such essentially clerical error in numbering references, where the legislative intent is clear and undisputed, a court has the power, and here properly used it, to substitute the right number for the wrong number used in the statute. [7] To permit an error as to a statute referred to, to invalidate a legislative enactment in an area of serious public concern, would indeed approach a betrayal of judicial duty. [8]