While the two provisions differ in terms, neither is this fact sufficient to create repugnance.

In order to
effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant
with the existing law that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together. The clearest case
possible must be made before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn, for inconsistency is
never presumed.   "It is necessarily, says the court in a case,   before such repeal is deemed to
24 25

exist that it be shown that the statutes or statutory provisions deal with the same subject matter and
that the latter be inconsistent with the former. There must be a showing of repugnance clear and
convincing in character. The language used in the later statute must be such as to render it
irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted.