81 Wis. 124 | Wis. | 1892
The defendant was informed against and convicted of the crime of rape on a female of the age of thirty-eight years. On the trial of this, case questions of •law arose which, in the opinion of the judge of the circuit
We answer the first question, Yes; but only so far as it was amended by or in conflict with chapter 368 of the General Laws of 1889.
We answer the second question, Yes. The rewriting and re-enactment of the whole section with the amendment or amendments engrossed, is a mere rule of the legislature to secure a clearer and readier understanding of the place and effect of the amendment. It is no part of the legislative act. The act consists of the amendment alone. For instance, the act of the legislature of 1889, so far as it relates to section 4381 of the Revised Statutes, is to “amend that section by striking out the word ‘ ten ’ where it occurs in said section, and inserting the word ‘ twelml ” That is as far as the legislature had any thought or intent. Then follows what is merely a conclusion, and clerical, under the rule,— “ so that said section, when amended, shall read as follows,” etc. The omission of the words “ or more,” following the word “ years,” in specifying the age of the female, in sec. 4381, R. S., and inserting the words “ or under” is a mere clerical mistalce in engrossing or rewriting the whole section as amended, and does not affect the act, which merely struck -out “ ten ” and inserted “ twelve.” The courts will read the amendment engrossed as it ought to be. Sec. 4381, R. S., is in force, so amended. The reenactment of the section, as so amended, is a mere matter
These answers will be certified by the clerk to the circuit court of the county of G-reen Lake, in which the trial was had, as the opinion of this court.
By the Court.— Ordered accordingly.