
    AUTHORITY TO APPOINT CONSTABLES FOR. THE PROBATE COURT.
    Circuit Court of Franklin County.
    State of Ohio, ex rel Thomas A. Curran, v. F. M. Sayre, County Auditor.
    Decided, February 8, 1909.
    
      Court Constable — Act 'Relating to, Unconstitutional — But has been Repealed by County Salary Law — Construction of the Words “Other Employes” as Used in This Act.
    
    Section 553, Revised Statutes, is not in contravention of Section 26, Article II of the Constitution of Ohio; but has been repealed by the county officers’' salary law, Yol. 98 O. L., p. 89, which provides that the county shall allow the probate judge a certain sum out of the county treasury to pay the salary of all his “deputies, assistants, clerks, bookeepers, and other employes as may be necessary,” etc.' The phrase “other employes” includes court constables.
    
      George B. Okey, for the plaintiff.
    
      Earl T. Webber, contra.
    Dustin, J.; Wilson, J., and Sullivan, J., concur.
    In mandamus.
   We are of the opinion that Section 553, Revised Statutes, providing for the appointment of court constables in the probate courts of counties having more than 70,000 population, is not in contravention of Section 26, Article II, Constitution of Ohio. It is an act of a general nature and of uniform operation throughout the state in all counties containing more .than 70,000 inhabitants, and was enacted for the purpose of meeting conditions liable to occur only in large counties. It is on a par with the election, law, held to be constitutional,, which provides that the polls in cities of more than 300,000 inhabitants shall open at 5:30 a. m. and close at 4 p. m., instead of at the hours provided for opening and closing in smaller towns and cities. Gentsch v. State, ex rel McGorry, 71 O. S., 151.

But we are also of the opinion that the foregoing act has been repealed by the more recently enacted county officers’ salary law, Volume 98, page 89, which provides that the county shall allow the- probate judge a certain sum out of the county treasury to pay-the salary, of all his “ deputies, assistants, clerks, bookkeepers, and other employes as may be necessary,” etc. We think the phrase, “other employes” covers court constables. Section 23 of the act provides for the repeal of all acts inconsistent with the foregoing. The inconsistency is, to us, apparent.

The rule that a general act does not repeal by implication a former special-one-does not apply, for the repeal in this instance is not by implication but by express language. Although the act in question is not specifically named, the legislative intent seems to be clear.

The writ, therefore, will be denied and the petition dismissed at the costs of the relator.  