"the rule is too well known to require citation of authorities, that repeals by implication are not favored." See also Ex Parte Brugneaux, 51 Wyo. 103, 63 P.2d 800; Waters vs. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 185, 129 P.2d 863. Citing extended lists of cases from many appellate courts, 16 C.J. 69, Section 33 says that:

We are not unmindful that repeals by implication are not favored in the law. Lovejoy v. State, 18 Okla Cr. 335, 194 P. 1087; Hudson v. State, 37 Okla. Cr. 290, 258 P. 352, 354; Waters v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 185, 129 P.2d 863; Ex parte Sweeden, 84 Okla. Cr. 127, at page 132, 179 P.2d 695, at page 697, wherein this court said: "We are familiar with the oft announced rule that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored but it is also well settled that the Legislature may, within constitutional limitations, express its will in any form which it sees fit and a repeal is effected where the intent to repeal is clearly evidenced; and where two statutes cover the same subject and the first statute last adopted is repugnant to and irreconcilable with the provisions covering the same subject in the first statute, the latest expression of the Legislature will govern.