22 BOARD OP AGRICULTURE. [Jan., 



might have arisen to the inoculation of one — tliat it might have been 

 constitutionally insusceptible to the disease, — and the contracting of the 

 disease by both horses inoculated manifestly settles the question. 

 Yours very truly, 



JAMES LAW, F. R. C. V. S. 



LEGAL OPINIOX OF E. H. HYDE, Jr., AND OTHERS. 



Hartford, Ct., Jan. 14, 1881. 

 To the Commissioners on the Diseases of Domestic AniinaU : 



Gentlemen : — Section 1 of chapter V, page 497, of the Public Acts 

 of 1880, prohibits under a penalty of fine or imprisonment, or both, the 

 sale or use by any person of any horse or other animal having the dis- 

 ease known as glanders or farcy. Section 2 of the same statute makes 

 it the duty of the owner or any person having cliarge of any horse, to 

 cause the same to be killed immediately upon being notified by the 

 State Board of Agriculture or the Commissioners on Diseases of Domes- 

 tic Animals that such horse is infected with said disease, and provides 

 for the punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both, of any person who 

 shall neglect to comply with the provisions of this section. 



Chapter LXXIH, page 534, of the Public Acts of the same year con- 

 fers upon said board or commissioners the power to cause to be killed 

 when, in their judgment, the public good shall require it, all animals 

 which, in their judgment, are infected with, or have been exjjosed to 

 and are liable to communicate to other animals any contagious disease, 

 and further provides for an appraisal of such animals before they can be 

 killed, and for a compensation therefor, based on such appraisal, to be 

 paid to the owner thereof by the state. 



The question which you desire to have answered, in view of these 

 statutes, as I understand it, is whether the owner of a horse, who has 

 been duly notified that such horse is infected with the glanders, incurs 

 the penalties prescribed in the 2/1 section of chapter V, upon his neglect 

 to cause said horse to be killed immediately upon receiving such notifi- 

 cation. 



I answer the question unhesitatingly and. without qualification in the 

 affirmative, — such owner is liable to prosecution and conviction under 

 said section. 



The contrary, however, is contended upon the ground that section 2 

 of chapter V is repealed by implication by chapter LXXIH. 



it is true that a prior statute may be repealed by implication by a 

 later statute whose provisions are inconsistent with and repugnant to 

 the first ; but courts do not enforce this rule of law except in cases 

 where the necessity for it is imperative, and they are especially reluctant 

 to apply it in respect to statutes passed at the same session of the legis- 

 lature. If it can be avoided, by a reasonable construction, they will not 



