Court Opinion

ID: 9809055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:59:42.831776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:23.187763
License: Public Domain

Smith, C. J.
(dissenting). I concur ip the construction put upon sec. 3766 in the dissenting opinion, and its effect upon the amendatory act of 1885, in leaving offences committed before its passage exposed to criminal prosecution. It is *364well settled that the repeal of a statute that creates an indictable offence withdraws the offence from the jurisdiction of the Court and the authority of the Court to pronounce judgment. To obviate this seems to be the purpose of the introduction of the terms in which it is declared that, when a part is amended, “ it is not to be considered as having been repealed and re-enacted in the amended form,” but the new statute, operating thereafter, shall consist of the unchanged part of the old enactment, as in force from the time of its original enactment, and of the amended portions in connection therewith. Such had been the law for a long space previous to 1868 in reference to civil actions. Section 3704, and the qualifying act of that date, embodied in sec. 3766 of The Code, seems to have been intended to apply a similar rule to criminal prosecutions. I think the defendant is still liable for his criminal misconduct in violating the provisions of the act of 1885, when it was in force, and that act is not abrogated in respect thereto.