B. KORLIE GEORGE, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, Appellee.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL IN PROSECUTION FOR EMBEZZLEMENT. Argued October 12, 1960. Decided December 16, 1960. 1. An appeal from a judgment in any case heard by a court in Liberia other than the Supreme Court is the inherent right of every party litigant except in a criminal case where, under certain conditions and in some circumstances, the State cannot appeal. 2. The Supreme Court has no authority to extrapolate the intent of the Legislature beyond the specific wording of a statute ; and this limitation is all the more mandatory where the statute in question specifies the only manner in which an act may be done. 3. The only grounds upon which an appeal in a criminal case can be dismissed are those specified by the controlling statute. 1956 Code, tit. 8, � 380. 4. Issuance of the notice of appeal through the sheriff instead of by the clerk is not a ground for dismissal of a criminal appeal. 5. Decisions construing statutes supplanted by the 1956 Code are not necessarily applicable as interpretations of legislative intent respecting provisions of the 1956 Code. Peter Amos George for appellant. Assistant Attorney General J. Dossen Richards for appellee. MR. JUSTICE PIERRE delivered the opinion of the Court. When this case was reached on the docket and called for hearing the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal, although duly issued, served on the appellee, and returned within time, is invalid because the said notice was addressed to the sheriff and ordered him to notify the appellee, instead of being addressed to the appellee in person. An appeal from a judgment in any case adjudged by an inferior court is the inherent right of every party litigant except in criminal cases where, under certain conditions and in some circumstances, the State cannot appeal. Except where a ground for moving this Court to dismiss an appeal is provided by a statute, we would seem to be without legal authority to dismiss. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 159 The statutory requisites for the taking of an appeal in criminal cases are laid down in tit. 8, �373 of the 1956 Code. The statute seems clear enough as to what shall constitute the legal duty of an appellant. But let us go further and review the statutory grounds upon which appeals in criminal cases can be dismissed. “An appeal from a court of record may, upon motion properly taken, be dismissed for any of the following reasons only : (a) failure to file an approved bill of exceptions within the time specified in section 373 (b) failure to file an approved appeal bond or material defect in such bond ; (c) failure to have notice of appeal served on appellee; or (d) non-appearance of the appellant on appeal.” 1956 Code, tit. 8, � 380. Under the above-quoted statutory provisions, the four grounds specified are the only grounds upon which an appeal can legally be dismissed in the Supreme Court. This Court has no authority to extrapolate the intent of the Legislature beyond the specific wording of a statute. This limitation is all the more mandatory where the statute in question specifies the only manner in which an act is to be performed. Our law does not give us authority either to add to or take from what the Legislature has commanded unless the said command breaches provisions of the Constitution; and in such case the constitutional issue must be raised squarely. Appellee contends that, the notice of appeal having been addressed to the sheriff instead of to the appellee, the statute was violated by such address to the sheriff. Appellee relied upon a decision of this Court in a civil case, Adai v. Jackson, [1914] LRSC 7; 2 L.L.R. 171 (1914). In that case this Court relied upon an earlier statute. It appears to us that no statute enacted previous to 1956 need now be considered in settling the question of what shall constitute 160 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS ground for dismissal of an appeal ; and no opinion of the Supreme Court handed down before the enactment of a given statute could be accepted as construing it. For how could this Court construe a statute before it had been enacted? The 1956 Code, quoted supra, makes no exceptions and admits of no ambiguity as to the specific grounds upon an appeal in a criminal case may be dismissed. So while we are prepared to agree that tit. 8, � 375 of the 1956 Code requires the clerk to issue the notice of appeal to the appellee, it does not make failure to do so a ground for dismissal of appeal if the notice was issued and served on the appellee within legal time. Appellee’s counsel has also contended that the language of tit. 8, � 375, of the 1956 Code, wherein it is required that the clerk issue the notice to the appellee, should be construed literally; and that issuance of the said notice through the sheriff is therefore a fatal defect. Although there is no provision in � 375 to suggest that an appeal should be dismissed where the notice of completion is not directly addressed to the appellee, yet we might have been willing to dismiss for this reason if � 380 of the said statute had not specified the only four grounds upon which an appeal might be dismissed. It is our opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be, and the same is hereby denied ; and the case as appealed will be heard on its merits. Motion denied.