{
  "id": 1576629,
  "name": "Gans v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gans v. State",
  "decision_date": "1918-02-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "481",
  "last_page": "484",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 Ark. 481"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Cal. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2205307
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/30/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Fla. 809",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Fla.",
      "case_ids": [
        1126260
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/fla/18/0809-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ind. 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1586977
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/139/0280-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Minn. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        1673018
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/69/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Miss. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Miss.",
      "case_ids": [
        301676
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/miss/41/0566-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Me. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Me.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ind. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1392413
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/127/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. Y. 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        568427
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/123/0070-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N. C. 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683296
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0598-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 Ark. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1556234
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/123/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S. W. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ky. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ky.",
      "case_ids": [
        1309566
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/74/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. W. 746",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 S. E. 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Pac. 991",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S. W. 813",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 Ark. 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1561094
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/120/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S. W. 272",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723681
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/16/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Vt. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        4444753
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/49/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ind. 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1586977
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/139/0280-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 Ark. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1556234
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/123/0184-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5822,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0708202061854092e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5597189256979848
    },
    "sha256": "189b4ac2368ce2ad6444a674d2bc88ad1ca270c190165a458cbae919a278e732",
    "simhash": "1:53be760594bb4adf",
    "word_count": 999
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:58.757040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gans v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WOOD, J.\nAppellant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Little Rock of a violation of Act 13 of the Acts of 1917, popularly designated as the \u201cBone Dry\u201d law. He appealed to the circuit court and was again convicted and fined in the sum of $100.00, from which judgment he appeals.\nThe only question presented by this appeal is whether or not the municipal court has jurisdiction of causes arising under section 15 of the above act. Section 15 of the act is, in part, as follows: \u201cThe circuit court held in the county from which, through which, or to which such shipments are made, shall have jurisdiction for the trial of such violations of this act and the grand jury of such counties shall be vested with inquisitorial powers over violations of this act, and the circuit judges shall call attention to this act in charging the grand jury.\u201d\nBy the act creating municipal courts in the city of Little Rock (Act 87, Acts of 1915) upon such courts is conferred jurisdiction \u201cconcurrent with the circuit court over all misdemeanors committed in violation of the laws of the State within the limits of the county.\u201d (Sec. 10.)\nAct 13 of the Acts of 1917, under which the appellant was convicted, does not expressly designate the offenses described and prohibited by that act as misdemeanors. But section 19 of the act-provides that \u201cany person * * * violating any of the provisions of this act * * * shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars for each offense, and may be confined not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days in the county jail.\u201d\nUnder our statute \u201cPublic offenses are felonies and misdemeanors. .A felony is an offense of which the punishment is death or confinement in the penitentiary. All other public offenses are \u2019misdemeanors.\u201d Kirby\u2019s Digest, Secs. 1547, 1548, 1549. A violation of the \u201cbone dry\u201d act is therefore a misdemeanor, and under the express terms of the act creating municipal courts in the city of Little Rock such courts are given \u201cconcurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court over all misdemeanors.\u201d\nCounsel for appellant urge, however, that since Act 13 of the Acts of 1917 expressly conferred jurisdiction upon the circuit courts of cases arising under the act, that this was intended by the Legislature to be an exclusive jurisdiction and operated as a repeal of the prior law conferring jurisdiction upon municipal courts of offenses arising under act 13 of the Acts of 1917.\nThe act under which appellant was convicted, while conferring upon the circuit court jurisdiction, did not in express terms say that it was an exclusive jurisdiction. This the Legislature would have done if it had intended to make such jurisdiction exclusive. The two acts conferring jurisdiction are not repugnant to each other, and unless they were so it is our duty to so construe them as to aliow them to stand together. Repeals by implication are not favored. Martels v. Wyss, 123 Ark. 184.\nTo make the statutes harmonize, the jurisdiction conferred by the act under review on the circuit courts should be held, in the absence of express language to denote a contrary intent, to be a concurrent jurisdiction with that of the prior act conferring upon municipal courts, in such cases, concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court. Their jurisdiction, once conferred, should not be taken away without express language indicating that such was the intention of the Legislature. It is a general rule that jurisdiction when conferred upon one court \u201cdoes not operate to oust other courts otherwise possessing it for the reason that concurrent jurisdiction is not inconsistent.\u201d First National Bank v. Hubbard, 49 Vt. 1; Browning v. Smith, 139 Ind. 280, and other cases cited in the brief of the Attorney General.\nIt follows that the municipal court had jurisdiction, and the ruling of the circuit court so holding was correct, and its judgment is therefore affirmed^",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scipio A. Jones and Archie V. Jones, for appellant; W. M. Pemberton and Chas. Jacobson, of counsel.",
      "John D. ArbucJcle, Attorney General, and T. W. Campbell, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gans v. State.\nOpinion delivered February 18, 1918.\n1. Liquor \u2014 illegal sale \u2014 bone dry law \u2014 jurisdiction op municipal court. \u2014 The municipal court has jurisdiction of causes arising under section 15, Act No. 13, Acts of 1917, known as the \u201cBone Dry Law.\u201d\n2. Liquor \u2014 violation op \u201cbone dry law\u201d \u2014 misdemeanor.\u2014A violation of the \u201cbone dry\u201d act is a misdemeanor.\n3. Jurisdiction- \u2014 concurrent jurisdiction \u2014 municipal and circuit courts \u2014 illegal sale op liquor. \u2014 Jurisdiction when conferred upon one court does not operate to oust other courts, otherwise possessing it, of jurisdiction, for the reason that concurrent jurisdiction is not inconsistent.\nAppeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; J. W. Wade, Judge;\naffirmed.\nScipio A. Jones and Archie V. Jones, for appellant; W. M. Pemberton and Chas. Jacobson, of counsel.\n1. Under the act municipal courts have no jurisdiction. The act expressly confers jurisdiction upon the circuit court and this was intended to be exclusive and operated as a repeal of prior laws. Acts 1917; Act No. 13, the Bone-Dry Law; Const. Art. 7, \u00a7 40; Act 2, \u00a7 8; 6 Eng. 482; 16 Ark. 37; 102 M'205; 172 S. W. 272; 120 Ark. 406; 179 S. W. 813; 97 Pac. 991; 103 Id. 742; 66 S. E. 690; 142 N. W. 746; 74 Ky. 527; 36 Cyc. 1122, note 49; 175 S. W. 554.\nJohn D. ArbucJcle, Attorney General, and T. W. Campbell, Assistant, for appellee.\n1. Municipal courts have jurisdiction. Acts 1915, No. 87, \u00a7 10, etc. There was no repeal by the Bone Dry Law. Repeals by implication are not favored. The conferring of jurisdiction on circuit courts does not deprive the municipal courts of jurisdiction. 123 Ark. 184; 8 Id. 9, 38; 28 Id. 19; Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 2083; Const. Art. 7, \u00a7 \u00a7 28, 34, 40; 64 N. C. 598; 123 N. Y. 70; 127 Ind. 490;. 22 Me. 146; 41 Miss. 566; 69 Minn. 499; 139 Ind. 280; 41 111. 326; 18 Fla. 809; 30 Cal. 573."
  },
  "file_name": "0481-01",
  "first_page_order": 505,
  "last_page_order": 508
}