Territory of Arizona v. Ruval

Citations

• 9 Ariz. 415
• 84 P. 1096
• 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 78

Syllabus

<p>1. Statutes — Repeal—Amendment.—When an act of the legislature amends a prior statute, repeating its provisions and adding thereto, and concludes with a repeal of “all acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act,” the amended statute, in so far as it is consistent with the amending act, is not repealed.</p> <p>2. Same — Amendment.—When a statute is amended by an act providing that the original statute “shall be amended so as to read as follows,” repeating the original and adding to it new provisions not in conflict with the original provisions, the repeated provisions are not a new enactment, but remain in force from the time of their original enactment.</p> <p>3. Larceny — Amendment of Statute — Theft of Gelding. — An act defined grand larceny as the larceny of property of a value exceeding fifty dollars, or when taken from the person, or of a horse, mare, gelding, etc. It was amended by repeating the former provisions, and adding “colt” and “bicycle” to the enumeration. Held, that the amended act was not repealed; that the larceny of a gelding prior to the amending act could be prosecuted.</p> <p>4. Criminal Law — Former Jeopardy. — The erroneous granting of a motion for defendant, after pleading not guilty without demurring, to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the act defining the offense had been repealed, is not a bar to further prosecution of the offense.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>