60 Ga. App. 207 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1939
Eutling Adcock was convicted of a misdemeanor by operating a dance hall in a county having a population of more than 3000 inhabitants, without first obtaining the permission of the commissioners of roads and revenues or other authority in charge of such county. A motion for new trial was overruled and the defendant excepted. He contends that the act approved March 29, 1937 (6a. L. 1937, p. 624), under which he was convicted, was repealed by the act approved March 30, 1937
The act approved March 30, 1937, does not repeal the act approved March 29, 1937. “Subsequent legislation repeals previous inconsistent legislation, whether it expressly declares such repeal or not. In the nature of things it would be so, not only on the theory of intention, but because contradictions can not stand together. The intention to repeal, however, will not be presumed, nor the effect of repeal admitted, unless the inconsistency is unavoidable, and only to the extent of the repugnance. In Winslow v. Morton [118 N. C. 486, 491, 24 S. E. 417] the court sums up the general principles touching implied repeals, in the form of rules which it formulates as follows: (1) ‘That the law does not favor a repeal of an older statute by a later one by mere implication.’ (2) ‘The implication, in order to be operative, must be necessary; and if it arises out of repugnancy between the two acts, the later abrogates the older only to the extent that it is inconsistent and irreconcilable with it. A later and an older statute will, if it is possible and reasonable to do so, be always construed togéther, so as to give effect not only to the distinct parts or provisions of the latter, not inconsistent with the new law, but to give
It would seem from the parts of the two acts above quoted that the first act was intended to require the permission of the county commissioners in the counties in the State having a population of 3000 or more, in order to '“establish, maintain, or operate any public dance hall, boxing or wrestling arena or amusement place, tourist camps and barbecue stands, for money or profit outside the limits of incorporated towns or cities” in said county. The repetition in the second act of the businesses named in the first act was, we think, for the purpose of emphasizing or making clear that the second act was not repealing the first, but was making a like restriction on an additional business, to wit: swimming-pools located outside of the limits of incorporated towns or cities in counties having a population of more than-57,000. The mere overlapping or duplicating of restrictions on certain kinds of businesses enumerated in both of the acts which are not inconsistent or repugnant, but on the contrary are stated in both acts in the same words, does not, we think, constitute an intent on the part of the legislature to repeal the first act by enacting the second; and our opinion is strengthened by the fact that the Second act was passed on the day following the passage of the first act and "at the same session of the legislature.
Judgment affirmed.