Bradley v. State
| Decision Date | 24 July 1893 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Crenshaw county; John P. Hubbard, Judge.
Dave Bradley was indicted, tried, and convicted for selling spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors contrary to law, and appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was indicted under the act approved February 28, 1887, (Sess Acts, p. 665,) an omnibus local prohibition law. Its provisions, as applicable to this case, are that "any person who sells, gives away, or otherwise disposes of any spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors," etc., "within townships 11 and 12 of beats 1 and 2, Crenshaw county, *** must, on conviction, be fined not less than fifty dollars and may also be sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than thirty days nor more than three months." The second count of the indictment in this case strictly conforms to the statute. All of the provisions of section 1 of said statute are embraced within the title to the enactment. Section 3 has provisions that are not covered by the title, viz. it provides for refunding to persons who have theretofore obtained licenses to retail liquors within the prohibition areas three-fourths of the several amounts paid by them in procuring their licenses. It also contained an appropriation clause of moneys to meet such payments. The defendant was tried and convicted under the second count of the indictment. There was a demurrer to this count, alleging that the third section of the act, under which the trial was being had, made the act unconstitutional, in this: that it introduced a subject which was not expressed in the title nor included within the purview of its terms. Const. art. 4, § 2. We think that section does bring into the enactment a subject that cannot be held to be embraced within the title. The question then arises, does this vitiate the whole statute? We have frequently considered this provision of the constitution. In Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala 533, we summarized most of the principles decided by this court. Those provisions are that this provision of the constitution is mandatory; that the title of a bill may be very general, and need not specify every clause of a statute it being sufficient if they are all referable and cognate to the subject expressed; but if clauses are contained in the act which are not so correlated to the subject expressed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Opinion of Justices
...the act which is not there. 11 Am.Jur. 838, § 152, and Note 15; Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 44 S.Ct. 323, 68 L.Ed. 686; Bradley v. State, 99 Ala. 177, 13 So. 415. interpretation would be amendatory and hence legislative, and beyond the power of the judiciary. State v. Davis, 130 Ala. 14......
-
Ham v. State
... ... subject expressed; but, if clauses are contained in the act ... which are not so correlated to the subject expressed in the ... title as to appear to follow as a natural and legitimate ... complement, they cannot stand." Ballentyne v ... Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533; Bradley's Case, 99 Ala ... 177, 13 So. 415; Bell's Case, 115 Ala. 87, 22 So. 453 ... Again it is said the test is: Is there anything in the bill ... which cannot by fair construction be referred to the title? ... Or (as stated in another form by this court): "The ... question must be whether, taking ... ...
-
State v. Pitts
... ... so much of said proviso as pertains to the concurrent ... operation and prosecutions thereunder is void, it could well ... be stricken without impairing the validity of the rest of the ... law, as we would have a good and complete law with this much ... of it excluded. Bradley v. State, 99 Ala. 177, 13 ... So. 415; State v. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 So. 344, ... 89 Am. St. Rep. 23. "If by striking out a void ... exception, provision, or other restrictive clause, the ... remainder, by reason of its generality, will have a broader ... scope as to subject or territory, ... ...
-
Mitchell v. State
... ... 112; ... and upon these authorities and the foregoing considerations ... our conclusion is that but one subject is expressed in the ... title to this act, and that the provision for licenses ... extending up to July 1, 1901, is within the subject so ... expressed. The cases of Bradley v. State, 99 Ala ... 177, 13 So. 415, and State v. Davis (Ala.) 30 So ... 344, are distinguishable from the case at bar in this: The ... prohibition intended by the statutes under review in those ... cases could be effected as well without their provisions for ... refunding license money ... ...