Page:Walker v. Allred.pdf/7

1110 it is not obvious that the makers meant something different from what they have said. Bennett v. Worthington, 24 Ark. 487; M. L. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 46 Ark. 159; Ry. Co. v. B'Shears, 59 Ark. 243, 27 S. W. 2. In the case of Cotton v. Boone County, supra, this court did not intend to, and did not, construe act No. 77 of the Acts, of 1927 with reference to act No. 32 of the Acts of 1897, but only as to its effect on special act No. 63 of the Acts of 1903, which placed the officers of Boone County on a salary and held that the inclusion of act No. 63 in the title and body of act No. 77 of the Acts of 1927 was a clerical mistake, as both in the title and body of said act the declared intent was to repeal special acts relating to and fixing the salaries of certain officers of Carroll County, and, no other purpose being mentioned, the phrase at the conclusion of the title, "and for other purposes," was without meaning.

It follows from the views expressed that the trial court erred, and the cause must be reversed, and remanded with directions to enter judgment giving to appellant the relief prayed.