Justice v. Commonwealth

Citations

• 81 Va. 209
• 1885 Va. LEXIS 23

Syllabus

<p>1. Construction op Statutes—Repeal by implication.—Bepeals by implication are not favored, but when two acts on same subject are irreconcilable, the latter act prevails.</p> <p>2. Idem—Idem—Lotteries—Sale of tickets.—By section 4, of act of February, 1816, the Dismal Swamp Canal Company was authorized to raise, by lotteries, $50.000. By sections 11 and 12, of Acts 1877-78, p. 309, the buying, selling, &e., of tickets in any lottery is prohibited under penalty. By necessary implication the latter act repeals the former.</p> <p>3. Constitution—Lottery privilege—Repeal.—The privilege to conduct a lottery is not a contract, but a matter of police; and the repeal of such privilege impairs the obligation of no contract, and is constitutional. And so of privilege to sell liquor, &e.</p> <p>4. Criminal Jurisdiction and Proceedings—Pleas of estoppel.— The doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to the Commonwealth in a criminal prosecution. The maxim, “No one shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence,” rests upon technical notions of jeopardy, and not upon the principle of res judicata. But that doctrine has been held applicable to the accused. Commonwealth v. Evans, 101 Mass. 25.</p> <p>5. Idem—Former jeopardy—Identity of parties.—To avail of such defence accused must jilead autrefois acquit or convict, and must aver that he is the identical party who was jirosecuted once before for the identical offence.</p>