Blair v. State

Decision Date31 March 1892
Citation90 Ga. 326,17 S.E. 96
PartiesBLAIR. v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Constitutional Law—Title of ActCity Charter—Extending Territory op Police Department.

The act entitled "An act to create a new charter for the city of Columbus, and to consolidate and declare the rights and powers of said corporation, and for other purposes, " approved November 29, 1890, is unconstitutional in so far as it provides for extending and exercising municipal police jurisdiction over and upon territory adjacent to the city. This being so, a policeman had no more power than any private person to make arrests on such adjacent territory, and no power whatever to arrest for the use of abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace, addressed at the moment to the policeman himself. The title of the act affords no indication of any extension of power, whatever, beyond the corporate limits.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Muscogee county; J. H. Martin, Judge.

Julius Blair was convicted of assault, and brings error. Reversed.

Cameron & McLester and M. H. Bland-ford, for plaintiff in error.

A. A. Carson, Sol. Gen., J. H. Worrill, and Morgan Mc-Michael, for the State.

BLECKLEY, C. J. The constitution declares that "no law or ordinance shall pass which refers to more than one subject-matter, or contains matter different from what Is expressed in the title thereof." Code, § 5067. The question Is whether the latter part of this inhibitory provision has not been violated by the legislature in enacting the third section in the charter of the city of Columbus, approved November 29, 1890. The title of the act constituting the charter reads thus: "An act to create a new charter for the city of Columbus, and to consolidate and declare the rights and powers of said corporation, and for other purposes." The third section is in these words: "Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in addition to the territory embraced in the corporate lines, as set forth in the several acts mentioned in the preceding section, all the land and territory outside of said corporate lines, which lies within the state of Georgia, and within one mile and one half, in a straight line, from any point of the corporate limits, shall be known as the 'Police District of the City of Columbus, ' over which the municipal government of the city of Columbus shall have and exercise a limited power and authority only, as follows: First. The mayor and aldermen of the city of Columbus shall have the sole and exclusive right to regulate the sale of spirituous and malt liquors within said police district, and to grant or refuse a license therefor, and they may put such terms, restrictions, and conditions on the sales of such liquors as they may deem proper; but in no case shall a license be granted within said district for a less term than one year, and, if any license is granted within said district, the fees thereof shall never be less than the amount of the license fee within the corporate limits proper of the city of Columbus. All such fees shall be collected In the same manner as similar fees are collected in the city of Columbus, and paid into the city treasury. Second. All laws and ordinances in force in the city of Columbus in reference to crimes or misdemeanors against the persons of citizens or individuals; against the habitations of persons, relative to property; against the public peace and tranquillity; against public morality and health, and offenses committed by cheats and swindlers; and offenses against public trade;against fraudulent or malicious mischief, — shall be in force within the territory comprising the said police district in the same manner, and to the same extent, as they are in force within the corporate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Davis v. Warde
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 1923
    ... ... state on account of sex ...          (a) ... Prior to the act of the Legislature of Georgia (Acts 1921, p ... 38,§ 2, par. 1) women were not ... because the body of the act contains matter different from ... that contained in the caption thereof. The first case cited ... is that of Blair v. State, 90 Ga. 326, 329, 330, 17 ... S.E. 96, 97 (35 Am.St.Rep. 206). The last sentence of the ... quotation from that case is as follows: "The ... ...
  • Nelson v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 23 Febrero 1966
    ...The purpose of this constitutional provision is 'to protect the people against covert or surprise legislation.' Blair v. State, 90 Ga. 326, 329, 17 S.E. 96, 97, 35 Am.St.Rep. 206; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. State of Georgia, 104 Ga. 831, 845(4), 31 S.E. 531, 42 LRA 518. The caption of the 196......
  • Brown v. Clower
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 20 Febrero 1969
    ...caption of all Acts of the General Assembly is "to protect the people against covert or surprise legislation.' Blair v. State, 90 Ga. 326, 329, 17 S.E. 96, 35 Am.St.Rep. 206; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. State of Ga., 104 Ga. 831, 845, 31 S.E. 531, 42 L.R.A. 518.' Nelson v. Southern Guaranty In......
  • Lamar v. Pearre
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 27 Agosto 1892
    ... ...           ... Syllabus by the Court ...          1 ... Under the system of pleading prevailing in this state, the ... positive and unqualified charges of material facts contained ... in a bill in equity praying for relief and waiving discovery, ... though ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT