IEATTORNEYGENERAI.
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
:
i
,,,
. .
,, .,
BowrubLe Williun II. Henslsy - Pa&a 2
whoever fires the grass outside o? any
lnolomre with the intent to destre
the grass therein by the comnuhioat I on
of said fire to the grass, shall be oon-
rined in the penitentiary not lees than
two nor more thah five years*
ktiole 1328b-1 provides, insofar as pexti-
nent to your ~questlon:
*seotion 1. ALV person who.wlll-
ruliy’ bets fire to woods, forests, re11008,
&r&se or rubbish of any kind, on lands or
whloh he is hot in poaseeslon or oontrol
at the time of setting out suoh fire, or
who willfully causes fires to be comsumi-
oeted to suoh woods, forests, fences,
gram or rubbish, or who w’lllfullg and
mal;~olously seta on fire or,,causee to be
set on fire any tiDh0r, w0ede., or uahee,
80 a8 to cause loss or Injury to.ahother,
still be guilty of a miedemeamr, and on
oonviotion must be Yined not Lees t~han Ten ‘,
(#lO.OO) Dollare, nor rots tbn ‘hro plu-
d$ed (#P30,00) Dollati~. a,)
.
‘s00. 4. Sv0lr.iiuliaiui~l al! 06rp-
oration who rriimily or neg3ig0ntly~aets
or owmunloatee firs to tuber leads,
woods, brush, .graer,, or etubble, on lamls
not their own, shall be guUty of a ds-
demanor.m
The elements or the two of%&?Ws defined
are hot identiaal, Artiole 1327 contemplates the fir-
ing of grass wIthin any inclosure, while Article 1386b-
1 does hot limit the offense there Dresolibed to the
firI= of gram wlthin ah inclosure: &tic10 1927 only
prohibits the firing of grass not his wn; abile under
Seotion’ 1 of Article 136t3b-1, the culprit, though he
wns the land, map yet be ohar~able dth the offeaae
preaoribed if he be not in poelcosdon ox oentrol at. tha
time of, setting of such flxe.. ‘Rati ow~~~rehip at k
difttingpished from poriseaslon or control Is indicated
in Phillips vs, State, .17 Cr. B0, 169, ~ofi#tru.ing Art.
1227 e Under JW. 1327, one is ‘@ilty who fires .the
grass aa therein prohibited, thou& no dam&e my be
. ‘+
- .
Hen, William H. Hens1.y i &age3 ',~
done, while Art, 1388b-1 @mtemplahs t&i&t loss or ir-
jury to another shall hare'beetiQaused b+the fires.
In Barker vs, State,,140 CrO,EZ.550, 146~8. W. (26)
761, construing Art,.13g%b~l,.itwas~held nooessary
that the indiotaent allegethat datendant set fire to
a Sence-Wo as ta caaim less 6r injuzlfto anether"
where an indictment under Art. 13&W-1 u&e prebrnted.
Article 1388b-1 ders not ccntain a repeal-
ing provision0 Since the two Artiales define ofSenwn,
the elements of which are clearly disti@gu.$shable,they
do not contain provisions a0 repugnant as'%0 justify a
oonstruction efreeotinga repeal of thetearlikr law by
implication because of~repugnancj.
~A,more troublesome question inraised by
the language of gee. 4 of Art? 1388b-1; especially in
view of the faot thatthe emergenep clause;~which is
3ec. 5 of the ori~giaalAct, recites tha# the factthat
there is no law on%uPstatutes now protroting l&&da
and timber against fires creates an emergehcy,W etc.
.Tlite
fact~that-the::Legislatureproilesssdto
ktmw of'no.laIF.$roteQEi,ngla+ds,and timber a
rim negative’sany implicatio* &at the
intended to repeal~~~.~former law covering the same
subject netter, Yet.$ec,~ 4 might be construed to de-
olare as a po1ioy.a.t &,h~,~~llfully setting or the
aommuhicating of fires to .t&kberlands, woods, brush,
grass, or stubbleon thb l&G ei another shall be~gu$ltl
af a misdemeanor thereby superseding the older felony
statuts8. If Set, 4 is to be 50 construed, it,