State v. Hollenbacher

Citations

• 101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 478

Syllabus

<p>Statutory construction — Revision of subject-matter — Repeals by implication — Affirmative statutes reconciledwhen — Effect of enactment of General Code — Codification considered original enactment — Criminal law — Insanity of defendant before sentence — Section 13608, General Code — Jury to determine sanity, when — Lima State Hospital Act inapplicable, when.</p> <p>1. A statute which revises the whole subject-matter of a former enactment, and which is evidently intended as a substitute for it, operates to repeal the former, although it contains no express words to that effect. But repeals by implication are not favored, and where two affirmative statutes exist, one will not be construed to repeal the other by implication, if they can be fairly reconciled. The fact that a later act is different from a former one is not sufficient to effect a repeal. It must further appear that the later act is contrary to, or inconsistent with, the former.</p> <p>2. The enactment by the legislature of the General Code in the act to revise and consolidate the general statutes of ©hio, passed February 14, 1910, gave to the statutes included therein the authority of an original enactment.</p> <p>3. Section 7240, Revised Statutes, was not repealed by implication by the Lima State Hospital Act, 98 Ohio Laws, page 236. Its provisions were substantially re-enacted in the General Code, and the requirements of Section 13608, General Code, formerly Section 7240, Revised Statutes, are mandatory.</p>