State v. Dinnisse
| Decision Date | 28 March 1892 |
| Parties | The State, Appellant, v. Dinnisse |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.
Affirmed.
B. D Kribben and J. M. Holmes for appellant.
(1) The information states a sufficient case under the statute. The words of the statute are broad enough to cover the bitters of the Harter Company. Wild cherry bitters are not only stated in the information to be a beverage, but certainly must be classed as such under any conceivable definition of the term. They come not only within the letter of the act, but within its spirit and are entitled to its protection. (2) The point that the act is unconstitutional because it embraces more than one subject in the title is not well taken. City v Green, 7 Mo.App. 472; 8 Mo.App. 349; Hannibal v Marion Co., 69 Mo. 575; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 71.
John A. Talty for respondent.
(1) If the above-mentioned bill is constitutional it simply applies to siphons, bottles and boxes that are constantly used by manufacturers and dealers for the purpose of delivering their goods, and are then returned to them by the person who purchases from them. It could not apply to bottles like those used by the Harter Medicine Company, for as a matter of fact when that company sells a bottle of its bitters it sells the bottle at the same time. (2) The act violates the constitutional provision that a bill shall contain but one subject, and that subject shall be clearly expressed in its title. The subject of the bill is not clearly expressed in the title as it should be, and besides the bill contains three or four different subjects. Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 268; City of Kansas v. Payne, 71 Mo. 162; People ex rel. Failing v. Commissioners, 53 Barb. 70; Igo v. State, 14 Ind. 239; Const., art. 4, sec. 28.
The court of criminal correction of the city of St. Louis sustained a demurrer to the information for a misdemeanor under which defendant was prosecuted, and the state appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals. Upon objection, by the defendant, that a constitutional question was involved, the case was transferred to this court.
The prosecution was for violation of an act of the legislature passed and approved in 1885. The title to the act is as follows: "An act to protect the property of manufacturers, bottlers and dealers in mineral waters, soda water, and other beverages from the loss of siphons, bottles and boxes." Laws, 1885, p. 151; now R. S. 1889, secs. 3880, 3881, 3882.
I. The unconstitutionality of the act is urged upon the ground that its subject was not clearly expressed in the title, and also that the bill contained more than one subject.
The first question to be determined is, whether such a constitutional question is involved as gives this court jurisdiction of the appeal. Section 28, article 4, of the constitution provides that no bill (except a general appropriation bill) "shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." Section 1 of the act in question provides that "All partnerships, corporate bodies, manufacturers and bottlers and dealers in mineral waters, soda waters or any other beverages whatsoever, who may use boxes, bottles, siphons, jugs or any other vessel upon which shall appear the name or names of the partnership, corporate bodies, dealers, manufacturers or bottlers, or other marks of ownership, stamped, engraved, cut, etched or in any other manner affixed thereon," might file with the vendor a description of such boxes, bottles, siphons, jugs or other vessels, and of the name or names or marks of ownership of the same, and publish notice thereof. Section 2 provided that such description should be recorded, and a certified copy thereof, with a copy of the notice, should be prima facie evidence of title. Section 3 made it a misdemeanor for anyone without the written consent of the owner "to trade or traffic in, or to wilfully mar or erase the name or names, mark or marks thereon, or to wilfully break, destroy or otherwise injure any such box, bottle, jug or siphon so marked or stamped, a description of which shall have been filed and published as provided in the preceding sections or to fill the same with mineral water, soda water, or any other beverage whatsoever, for the purpose of sale or traffic."
It is evident the purpose of the act was to protect manufacturers and dealers in mineral waters, soda waters, and other like beverages,...
To continue reading
Request your trial