“[t]here is substantial authority . . . holding that where the effect of the amendment of a statute is only to increase the prescribed punishment, the unchanged portion of the amended statute remains in effect”
How later courts described this case
- “[t]here is substantial authority . . . holding that where the effect of the amendment of a statute is only to increase the prescribed punishment, the unchanged portion of the amended statute remains in effect”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE ADAIR:
I concur in the result.
Sections 43-510, 93-401-15, 93-401-16, 94-101 and 94-102,- Revised Codes of Montana of 1947, are here controlling. Compare: State ex rel. Esgar v. District Court, 56 Mont. 464 , at *381 pages 471-473, 185 Pac. 157 ; State v. Bowker, 63 Mont. 1 , 205 Pac. 961 , 962 ; Jobb v. County of Meagher, 20 Mont. 424, 433 , 51 Pac. 1034, 1037 ; State v. Schnell, 107 Mont. 579, 584 , 88 Pac. (2d) 19, 21 , 121 A.L.R. 1082 ; State of Montana ex rel. State Aeronautics Commission v. Board of Examiners of State of Montana, 121 Mont. 402 , 194 Pac. (2d) 633 ; State v. Gussenhoven, 116 Mont. 350 , 152 Pac. (2d) 876 , and State v. Nance, 120 Mont. 152 , 184 Pac. (2d) 554 . Also see my dissent in State v. Holt, 121 Mont. 459 , at pages 488 to 508, 194 Pac. (2d) 651 , at pages 667 to 677.
The statutes and decisions of Montana govern this appeal and not the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Oregon and California such as State v. Smith, 56 Or. 21 , 107 Pac. 980 , and Sekt v. Justice’s Court, 26 Cal. (2d) 297, 159 Pac. (2d) 17 , 167 A.L.R. 833 .