Not only can this waste be prohibited at the suit of the public, but it can be enjoined by any private individual who has an interest as one of the common owners of the underlying gas.

204 The statute of which the foregoing forms a part a-uthorized the construction of "offices, buildings and such other structures as may from time to time be deemed necessary to the complete estab- lishment and equipment of such hospital for the care, treatment and safekeeping of patients, according to modern, advanced and practical methods, said hospital being constructed upon what is commonly known as the 'cottage plan.' " (Acts 1905, p. 28.) Section 5 permits the drawing and payment of warrants for the above construction. In 1907 the legislature made certain specific appropriations, aggregating approximately $559,000, for construction of cottages. There was no express repeal of the former statute, and nothing to indicate that the later appropriations were in lieu of those made in 1905. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it may fairly be presumed the last appropriations were in addition to those al- ready provided. Accordingly, there will be no impropriety in the board utilizing the appropriation of 1905 for the erection and equipment of cottages, and the general fund need not be re- imbursed therefor from the specific appropriations hereafter avail- able under the act of 1907. GAS-WASTE OF-CRIM INAL LAW. REPEAL OF- INJNCTION. June 6, 1907. Hon. Bryce A. Kinney, State Gas Inspector, Marion, Indiana: Dear Sir-Answering your verbal request for my opinion, it is my conclusion that section 3 of the act of 1893 (Acts 1893. p. 300; being section 7512 Burns' Statutes 1901), as amended by the act of 1899, was repealed by the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 212), as, while the exact state of facts has not been passed upon in Indiana, it would probably be so held in order to give effect to the fifth section of the act of 1903, and because there is no other construction possible to give any effect to that section. A similar case was so decided in another state (Greer v. State, 22 Tex. 588). The repeal of that penalty section does not, however, abolish criminal prosecution for the waste of gas: but the same may be prosecuted under section 534 of the public offenses act of 1905 (the same being section 2179 Burns' Statutes 1905), which reads as follows: "Every person who shall erect, or continue and main- tain any public nuisance, to the injury of any part of the citizens of this state, shall, on conviction be fined not ex- ceeding one hundred dollars," upon the authority of the case of State v. Ohio Oil Company, 150 Ind., p. 21, in which case an injunction against the waste of gas was awarded as against a public nuisance, at the suit of the public authorities, the attorney-general and the prosecuting at- torney of the Madison circuit court. Not only can this waste be prohibited at the suit of the public, but it can be enjoined by any private individual who has an interest as one of the common owners of the underlying gas. It would probably be wise to test the question of the repeal. by having the prosecutor appeal the case: but, in the meantime. you can proceed by another criminal action for public nuisance, or by injunction by the state: or, if any private person or cor- poration, interested, so desires, he may enjoin. Manufacturers' Gas & Oil Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co., 155 Ind. 461. PHARMACY, INDIANA BOARD OF-CONSTRUCTION OF ACTS IN REGARD TO. June 8, 1907. Hion. A. F. Sala, Secretary, Indiana Board of Pharmacy, Win- chester, Indiana: Dear Sir-Your communication of June 5th received, in which you ask my opinion: First-Whether under section 8 of the act of 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 159) the registered assistant pharmacists have the same rights and privileges as the registered pharmacists. Second-Whether under section 6 of the act of March 9, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 317), amending section 8 of the act of 1899, regis- tered assistant pharmacists have the same rights and privileges as the registered pharmacists. Third-Why should not the board of pharmacy grant regis- tered pharmacist certificates to all registered assistant pharma- cists without examination?