...all the elements necessary to constitute the offense. 2. The rule of construction of statutes is that where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet, if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first and embraces new provisions plainly showing that it...

...the elements necessary to constitute the offense. 2. The rule of construction of statutes is -that where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet, if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first and embraces new provisions plainly showing that it...

...when two acts "are repugnant in any of their provisions, the later act, without any repealing clause, operates to the extent of the repugnancy as a repeal of the first." So. to the extent that the statute must be read as the Attorney General says, and I submit to you it...

...when two acts "are repugnant in any of their provisions, the later act, without any repealing clause, operates to the extent of the repugnancy as a repeal of the first." So. to the extent that the statute must be read as the Attorney General says, and I submit to you it...

...a well settled rule in the construction of statutes, often affirmed and applied by this court, that "even where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first act, it will operate as a repeal of that act."* The...

...if the two are repugnant in any of their provisions, the latter act, without any repealing clause, operates to the extent of the repugnancy, as a repeal...acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that...

...consequently the earlier statute stands repealed by implication. latter act, without any repealing clause, operates to the extent of the repugnancy as a repeal...acts are not, in express terms, repugnant, yet if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first and embraces new provisions plainly showing that it...

...should govern, it repeals the prior one." Daviess v. Fairbairn, 44 US (3 How.) 636 [11 L. Ed. 760]. "And even where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet, if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that...

...L. Ed. 153, 'one of the leading cases on the subject, the Supreme Court of the United States said: "And even where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet if the latter net covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that...

...well-settled rule in the construction of statutes, often affirmed and applied by this court, that, "even where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that...