People v. Phair

HAHN, J.,

pro

tem.

Defendant was found guilty on each of four counts charging him with the offense of contributing to delinquency, declared to be a misdemeanor under the “Juvenile Court Law’’. The judgment of the court was that he be punished by imprisonment in the Los Angeles county jail for a period of two years on each count. Sentences on three counts were to run concurrently, and on the fourth, to run consecutively with the sentences on the other counts.

In his appeal from the judgment 'defendant urges that this judgment of imprisonment is contrary to law for the reason that the provisions of section 21 of the juvenile Court Act, which provides for a maximum imprisonment of two years in the county jail upon conviction of an offense prescribed by that act, was modified or repealed by section 19a of the Penal Code, enacted in 1933, wherein it is provided that, “In no case shall any person sentenced to confinement in a county or city jail on conviction of a misdemeanor, or as a condition of probation, or for any reason, be committed for a period in excess of one year.” As there is no provision in this section which directly repeals qr modifies the penalty provision of section 21 of the Juvenile Court Act, such repeal or modification, if any, must be by implication.

It is a well-established rule that the law does not favor repeal by implication. It has been declared in effect by the Supreme and Appellate Courts of this state that a later act does not change or repeal a previously enacted law,

[614]

where such

change or

repeal is not specifically declared, unless it appears from the later act that it was the intention so to do, or that the two acts are so in conflict that each cannot be given the force and effect clearly intended.

(Bateman

v.

Colgan,

111 Cal. 586 [44 Pac. 238] ;

People