Bazemore v. State

• Citation: 121 Ga. 619,49 S.E. 701
• Parties: BAZEMORE v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 26 January 1905
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

49 S.E. 701

121 Ga. 619

BAZEMORE

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 26, 1905.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—POLICE POWER—REGULATING SALES OF COTTON SEED—UNLAWFUL PURCHASE—INDICTMENT—EVIDENCE.

1. Under the police power laws may be passed for regulating common occupations which, from their nature, afford peculiar opportunity for imposition and fraud.

2. Because of its value, the ease with which it is taken from the field, and the difficulty of detecting the thief, the state may regulate the sale of seed cotton, and fix a punishment upon the person who buys in violation of the terms of the statute.

3. The question as to the constitutionality of the local act for Muscogee county is controlled in principle by the decision in Jenkins v. State, 46 S. E. 628. 119 Ga. 430.

4. The indictment followed the terms of the statute, and was not subject to demurrer because of the failure to describe the land on which the seed cotton was grown. The evidence supported the verdict, and it was not error to refuse to grant a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Muscogee County; P. E. Seabrook, Judge.

Charles Bazemore was convicted of purchasing seed cotton in violation of law, and brings error. Affirmed.

Bazemore was charged with the offense of a misdemeanor, for that, without the written consent of the owner of the land whereon the same was produced, and without the written consent of the agent of such owner, he did, between the 1st of August and the 20th of December, to wit, on the 10th of November, unlawfully purchase 98 pounds of cotton in the seed from one Leonard Huling. The defendant demurred on the ground that the local act creating such an offense (Acts 1889, p. 1391) was void under the Constitutions of Georgia and of the United States, in that it deprived a person of the use of his property without due process of law, and deprived a citizen of the rights, privileges, and immunities created by the Constitution of Georgia and of the United States, and was not a valid exercise of the police power of the state. He specially demurred for the further reason that the indictment did not set forth or describe the premises whereon the cotton was grown, or the name of the owner thereof, so that the defendant could be informed of what he was expected to defend. The demurrer was overruled. The evidence showed that Huling got the seed cotton from Bryant; that he carried it to Bazemore, who asked to let him have the cotton; whereupon Huling said he understood that everybody could not buy cotton without a license; to which Bazemore replied that there was no such law, and that anybody could buy cotton who wanted to. Thereupon Huling sold the cotton to Bazemore for $3. He carried no written order of any kind allowing him to sell the cotton; did not know on whose land the cotton was raised. The defendant was convicted, and assigns error on overruling the demurrer and refusing to grant a new trial.

T. T. Miller, for plaintiff in error.

S. P. Gilbert, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LAMAR, J. (after stating the foregoing facts). The right to be at large without the right to act would be but to live in a prison of extended bounds. The liberty which.is guarantied by the Constitution means far more than freedom from servitude. An integral and essential element is the right to use all one's...