Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Bentine

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1923Published

Application of William Bentine for a writ of habeas corpus.

1DissentEsciiweiler, J.

{dissenting). I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority on the seemingly simple question here involved: namely, Did the legislature of 1921 intend and determine to amend sec. 4382, Stats., by Bill 502 S or by sec. 48 of Bill 491 S ?

Bill 502 S was definite, limited, explicit, and certain, and rectified an error of some years’ standing, and by making the age of consent sixteen years in sec. 4382 harmonized that with other sections of the law as it then stood on kindred subjects. The bill expressly referred in its title and in its body to sec. 4382 and sec. 4580m and no others.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roether v. RoetherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  2. State ex rel. McManman v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  3. State v. WentlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Griswold v. NicholsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API