State v. Benjamin
State of Oregon v. Henry Benjamin
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Boise, J.
At the trial the counsel for the prisoner asked the court to instruct the jury that section five of the act of 1854, was repealed so far as it relates to keeping open a house in which intoxicating liquors are kept for retail, which instruction the court refused. Counsel for the prisoner claims that, section 653, page 564 of the Code, repeals, by implication, section five aforesaid.
Section 653 provides: “ If any person shall keep open any store, shop, grocery, ball-alley, billiard room, tippling house, or any place of amusement, or shall do any regular business or labor, &c., on Sunday, he shall, on conviction, be punished,” &c. Are these provisions so inconsistent that they cannot both stand % Section 653 contains no words descriptive of this offense, and cannot, therefore, by implication, repeal section five. To repeal an act by implication, there must be a subsequent statute on the same subject, and providing for the same subject matter; so that at the time the legislature enacted the subsequent statute, they must have intended it as a substitute for the former. Section 653 does not provide against keeping open houses in which intoxicating liquors are kept for retail; there is then no inconsistency or repeal by implication.
Judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.