People v. Dobbins

Belcher C. C. This is an agreed case, and the only question involved is, whether the provisions of sections 634 or 636 of the Penal Code govern as to the disposition of fines collected for violations of chapter 1, title 15, of that code, the two sections being in direct conflict. It appears from the agreed statement that the district attorney of Solano County, the appellant here, had in his hands the sum of $305, being the One fourth of certain fines collected in cases prosecuted by him for violation of that chapter in the Justices’ Courts of his county during the year 1885, and subsequent to May 12th of that year; and the question is, What is to be done with that money? Of the other three fourths, the sum of $610 was paid to the informers, and $305 to the district attorney, and about this there is no controversy.

Section 636 was amended on March 30,1878, and until it was again amended on March 24,1887, in so far as it related to the disposition of moneys collected for fines, reads as follows:—

• “ One half of all moneys collected for fines for violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be paid to informers, and one half to the district attorney of the county in which the action is prosecuted.”

Section 634 contained no provision relating to the moneys collected for fines until March 12, 1885, but it was then amended, the amendment taking effect May 12th, so as to contain the following provision:—

“ One half of all moneys collected for fines for violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be paid to the informer, one quarter to the district attorney of the county in which the action is tried, and one quarter shall be paid into the fish commission fund.”

It is claimed for the appellant that section 636 must [259]control as to the disposition of the money, because it is last in numerical order, and there is nothing in the chapter apart from the conflicting provisions to indicate an intention that the section first in numerical order should prevail; and section 4484 of the Political Code is cited as decisive of the question. That section provides as follows: —

“ If conflicting provisions are found in different sections of the same chapter or article, the provisions of the sections last in numerical order must prevail, unless such construction is inconsistent with the meaning of such chapter or article.”