*1 135 exemption him homestead of the the benefit to decree by have the court provided should Constitution, for rendering holding the court After decreed.” so modify power decree set aside had decree except upon application expiration of the term after further said: “If it be said statute, under hardship homestead for a man lose his is a that it exemption par- he failed to assert at some because par- or in or in some time, mode, ticular some replied proceedings, may be that such ticular any oppor-. law in relation defense which a man an has tunity interpose to make and fails to it.” subsequent

In a number decisions' the ease Vaughan, recognized supra, Turner v. we have the doc- trine therein controlling announced which is in the case at bar. We appellants therefore having conclude that, up any failed to set alleged petition the matters in the redemption original in the proceeding, appel- which lants might well have subsequent done, court at a term objections not entertain these as its decree had be- come final. decree of the chancellor is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.

Raines v. Bolick. Dissenting opinion July delivered 13, opinion majority For of the court, see Ark. 832. (dissenting). agree J., I do not with Mehaeey,

majority that act of the of 1923 is a law. I think it is a local law. generally

The courts have held general, that a law is governed, because it embraces all may, but that it many terms, its provi- when are embraced in its they -occupy all positions sions, embrace others when like to those who are embraced. Sudh law must be based upon some substantial difference between the situation

of a or or classes to which class classes and another class apply. it does not legis- provision prohibiting local The constitutional ‘‘ Assembly shall

lation reads as follows: G-eneral any pass special act. This shall not local or amendment special repeal prohibit of local acts.” Amend- not the or ment No.

By provision Legislature is the constitutional this may any except prohibited passing repeal a local act. by repeal, given power the

This court held that repeal power to this with it amendment, carries part. original of if Therefore, act act in authority, Legislature had the of a local act, 1923is repeal or this act court, of under the decisions any part agree a All that act is it. authority Legislature have had which the would part repeals 1923, 126 of act in whole unless it a local act. act 126 is which not do unless it could determining frequently held that in This court has general or local form whether a statute is a in the form of and a control, statute statute does not only apply if it act would be McLaughlin city Ford, 1108, 168 Ark. or town. one 273 S. 707.W. proper classifica- while that, has held also

This must be arbi- classification allowable, such tion provides trary. expressly in 24: “This § of 1923 Act 126 population only operative in counties with a shall be by Federal exceeding the last as shown inhabitants 75,000 census.” provides that the last Federal census also

The act prior taken Federal census recent mean the shall most petition formation of the im- filing for the to the provement district. passed last Federal in and the act was

This at time the Maibel- and also at that time census taken County is that Pulaski shows formed, was vale District population having exceed- only county in State ing By 75,000. the Federal in 1920 Pulaski census taken County approximately had There 109,000 inhabitants. are 75 in in the State and 1920 there were required four or five one-half counties that had population, years report 75,000. later the Ten shows only eight that there were counties, outside of Pulaski population, required one-half the had some of these counties had fewer in 1930 inhabitants they than had in 1920.

I do not think it is a reasonable classification because years might in 40 or 50 there be other counties would *3 provisions wholly come within the of this act. It is un- suppose reasonable to that one-fourth of the counties required population will years, have the in the 40 next determining general and in whether it is local or things the .abovementioned, think, I should .beconsidered. intention, I think it is manifest that there nowas that apply this act should ever to more counties, than a few only apply and it is it certain that could to Pulaski County years. for 15 or 20 It therefore seems me to question being there can be about 126 act a local law. Legislature passes This has held that when court the leaving an act out two-counties the act is because apply it. can never to two out, the left counties and this although court leaving holds in this case that, out two leaving counties makes act local, 74 out counties does leaving not make it local. If two out counties an makes act can, general local, how it be said that an act is when it apply never could to half the counties in the State? very

This court said in a recent case: “The effect excepting provisions operation from the and of the Special act the Grosnell District School and counties Sharp applicable of Faulkner was to leave the and law only excepted to the remainder of the not State so and excepted territory unchanged, law as though to as Casey Doug act 149 of 1929 had not been enacted.” v.

lass, 173 641, Ark. 296 S. W. 705. “The exclusion of a single county operation of the law makes it stat- and a local it cannot .be both and

local, (2d) 617. Ark. W. Adams, 713, 23 S. v.Webb ute.” Nothing certain than that act can be more if and counties, one-half more than 1923 left out leaving more county local, it leaving makes out one out -which, apply, could it never half counties, than certainly makes it local. and an was unconstitutional court held that

This Mississippi applied only and because void following: approval quoted “If its with necessarily special, the be (cid:127)operation and effect must special, may Ark-Ash Lumber its form.” whatever he Fairley, 162 Ark. 258 S. W. 235. Pride & Co. of our eases are statements in some There way certain counties or other in no effect that except by legislation given relief such and towns be cities may one time, have been true at 1923. That as act 12*6of provides Legisla- our but Constitution expressly pass any but also shall not ture municipalities provides No. 7 in Amendment every special legislation local and character. *4 longer any Legislature for

There is no reason says pass local Constitution that acts. may municipalities all and kinds of local acts. certainly passed known when act was that was

It apply just to Pulaski and it could was as majority apply it never a could certain a intended as al- therefore It was counties. though in form. it was repealed 231 of the As whether provisions part of act 126 is a more doubtful in Legislature authorizes the question. The Constitution Gregory repeal this court held in and v. (2d) 362, 719, 18 Ark. S. W. that under Cockrell, 179 Legislature Constitution could re provision of the ' ' any .part repeal of it. peal Gregory I think decision of act 231 of under the repealed portion Cockrell, of act 126 1923 that v. authorized the the Mabelvale Road District, creation of (cid:127) and I be therefore think the case should affirmed.

Spence State. Opinion July 13, delivered Peyton Moncrief, D. M. J. Brice, A. G. Meehcm appellant. Moncrief, John W. *5 Attorney Nomvood, G-eneral, L.

Hal Robert F. appellee. Assistant, Smith, Spence prosecutes appeal Ruth Hart, C. J. judgment against of conviction her

reverse for mur-