State v. Yewell

Ritchie, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The traverser was indicted by the Grand Jury of Anne Arundel County for violating the Act of 1876, chap. 273 ; one count in the indictment being for giving, and the ¹²¹ other for selling spirituous liquor to a minor within the corporate limits of Annapolis, without the written order or consent of his parent or guardian. Upon demurrer, the indictment was quashed upon the ground, that the Act upon which it was founded had been repealed by the Act of 1882, chap. 112. Whether such was the effect of the latter Act, is the question now presented.

The Act of 1882, does not in terms repeal the Act of 1876; and therefore, if it so operates, does so by implication. The principles of implied repeal are well settled. “ When there are two Acts on the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible. But 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 of the first.” United States vs. Tynen, 11 Wall., 92 . This general rule is recognized in equivalent terms in State vs. Northern Central Railway Co., 44 Md., 131 ; Appeal Tax Court vs. Western Maryland R. R. Co., 50 Md., 296 , and other Maryland cases.

The Act of 1876 was enacted when license to sell liquor prevailed in Anne Arundel County, and was intended as •a restriction of the general right to dispose of that article, in the interest of the well being of persons under age, and for the better preservation of discipline among the students •of St. John’s College, and the midshipmen, seamen and employes connected with the Naval Academy or the Naval service. The right to procure spirituous liquors without restraint common to citizens generally, was as to these particular classes qualified by the condition in the case of minors, that no liquor should be furnished them except upon the written order or consent of the parent or guardian, and in the case of those connected as described with the College or Academy or Naval Service, upon the written order of a professor or commissioned officer, respectively. ¹²² It is plain that this statute was predicated upon the then existing condition of the law, and was aimed to prevent, the pernicious effects which would result to the classes specified, unless they were denied the unlimited facility for. procuring liquor enjoyed by the community at large. The dangers to which they were exposed when the-license system was prevailing, are now more effectually guarded against hy the adoption of the Act of 1882, commonly called the “Local Option” law, which