F. & M. Harold v. State

Citations

• 16 Tex. Ct. App. 157
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 86

Syllabus

<p>1. Construction or Statutes—Repeal.—Though a subsequent statute on a given subject be not repugnant in all its provisions to a prior one on the same subject, yet if it clearly appears that the later statute was intended to prescribe the only rules which should govern the subject, the effect of the later statute is to repeal the former.</p> <p>'2. Same.—When a subsequent statute, revising the subject matter of a former one, is evidently intended as a substitute for it, although it contains no express words to such effect, it must be held to operate to repeal the former to the extent to which its provisions are revised and supplied.</p> <p>3. SAME.—When a statute is revised, or one act is framed from another, some parts being omitted, the parts so omitted cannot be revived by construction, but are to be considered as annulled.</p> <p>4. Same.—It is true that a construction which repeals a former statute by implication is not favored, and it is equally true that Statutes in pari materia, and relating to the same subject matter, are to be considered together; nevertheless it is a universal rule that when the new statute, in itself, comprehends the whole subject, and creates a new, entire and independent system respecting the subject matter, it repeals and supercedes all previous systems and laws respecting the same subject matter.</p> <p>6. Same—Infectious Diseases amono- Animals—Protection or Wool Growers.—Under the rules of construction announced, it is held that Article 694 of the Penal Code was repealed by the “ Act for the protection of the wool growing interests of the State of Texas,” passed April 4,1883.</p>