An earlier statute is impliedly repealed by a later statute only if the latter is necessarily repugnant to the former. The word "may" when used in a statute is to be interpreted as mandatory rather than permissive if the context permits it and it is necessary to do so in order to make the statute effective to carry out the legislative intent. Inasmuch as the minor court act as a whole expresses clearly the intention of the Legislature to set up a new, uniform and exclusive jurisdiction and practice and procedure for the minor courts of the state, and 1364e thereof sets up methods of appeal which purport to be exclusive and are inconsistent with the continuance of any other methods of appeal, held that the intention expressed by the Legislature in this section is that the right of appeal set forth therein is exclusive. The provisions of this section are, accordingly, repugnant to any pre-existing charter provisions relating to appeal from the minor courts and its adoption repealed by implication all former charter provisions providing for appeals from town, city or borough courts. In view of the provisions in 1364e that appeals from civil judgments of the courts of any town, city or borough having a population of fifteen thousand or more may be taken to the Supreme Court of Errors, the present appeal from the City Court of New Britain to the Superior Court, taken under a provision of the charter of the city of New Britain, was properly dismissed.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the memorandum of decision quoted above, we find correct the conclusion reached, that Cumulative Supplement 1939, 1364e, repealed by implication the right of appeal provided by statute, Special Acts, 1917, page 1119, from the City Court of New Britain.