▁crime ; ▁and ▁ ▁that ▁the ▁Bes l uit , ▁in ▁so ▁far ▁as ▁it ▁referred ▁to ▁col oured ▁persons , ▁had ▁been ▁imp lied ly ▁repe aled ▁by ▁subsequent ▁legisl ation . ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁ ▁The ▁App ell ate ▁Division , ▁allowing ▁an ▁appeal , ▁did ▁not ▁think ▁it ▁necessary , ▁for ▁the ▁purposes ▁of ▁this ▁case , ▁to ▁attempt ▁to ▁lay ▁down ▁any ▁specific ▁test ▁for ▁dec iding ▁whether ▁an ▁en act ment ▁creates ▁a ▁criminal ▁off ence . ▁It ▁was ▁sufficient , ▁the ▁court ▁found , ▁to ▁apply ▁the ▁general ▁rule ▁of ▁giving ▁effect ▁to ▁the ▁law g iver ' s ▁intention . ▁It ▁considered , ▁therefore , ▁whether ▁or ▁not ▁the ▁language ▁of ▁the ▁Bes l uit , ▁together ▁with ▁its ▁surrounding ▁circumstances , ▁showed ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁a ▁pen al ▁en act ment . ▁The ▁court ▁began ▁by ▁comparing ▁the ▁Bes li ut ▁with ▁other ▁legisl ative ▁en act ments ▁preceding ▁and ▁following ▁it , ▁and ▁found ▁none ▁whose ▁terms ▁showed ▁it ▁to ▁be ▁a ▁criminal ▁en act ment ▁but ▁which ▁did ▁not ▁express ly ▁mention ▁a ▁penalty : ▁" A ▁survey ▁of ▁the ▁legisl ation ▁up ▁to ▁and ▁including ▁the ▁period ▁when ▁the ▁Bes l uit ▁was ▁passed ▁aff ords ▁good ▁reason ▁for ▁holding ▁that , ▁as ▁a ▁matter ▁of ▁practice , ▁' when ▁the ▁Volks ra ad ▁intended ▁to ▁create ▁a ▁crime , ▁it ▁pres cribed ▁a ▁penalty .' " ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁held , ▁for ▁this ▁reason ▁and ▁for ▁others , ▁that ▁the ▁Bes