Commonwealth v. Robinson

• Citation: 233 S.W. 791,192 Ky. 374
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. ROBINSON.
• Decision Date: 27 September 1921
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

233 S.W. 791

192 Ky. 374

COMMONWEALTH v. ROBINSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 27, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Laurel County.

Eller Robinson was indicted for the offense of being drunk on a public road. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer, the Commonwealth appeals. Reversed and remanded.

C. I Dawson, Atty. Gen., T. B. McGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and B G. Reams, Co. Atty., of London, for the Commonwealth.

Finley Hamilton, of London, for appellee.

HURT C.J.

An indictment was returned against the appellee, Eller Robinson accusing him of the offense of unlawfully being drunk and intoxicated upon the road. The indictment was based upon section 28 of chapter 81 of the Session Acts of 1920, which is commonly called the State Prohibition Enforcement Law. A general demurrer was sustained to the indictment, and the attorney for the commonwealth has appealed. The validity of the indictment is assailed upon the ground that the portion of section 28, c. 81, which makes the act of being drunk upon a public road unlawful is void, because the enactment of the act with such provision in it was in contravention of the requirements of section 51 of the Constitution of Kentucky. The portion of section 51 of the Constitution which it is insisted was violated is as follows:

"No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

The title of the act embraced in chapter 81 of the Session Acts of 1920 is as follows:

"An act to prohibit and provide penalties for the manufacture, sale, transportation or other disposition of spirituous, vinous, malt or intoxicating liquors except for sacramental, medicinal, scientific or mechanical purposes in the commonwealth of Kentucky and to regulate manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol for nonbeverage purposes thereunder."

In section 28 of the act it is declared to be unlawful to drink intoxicating liquors in certain public places, or to drink them in excess so as to be intoxicated or drunk. It is the contention of the appellee that the subject of drunkenness is not germane to the subject expressed in the title to the act. In other words, it is a different subject-matter from the subject expressed in the title to the act, and for that reason so much of section 28 as makes it unlawful to drink liquors to intoxication and being in a drunken condition is void. It is not necessary to say that the requirement of the Constitution, as expressed in section 51, is mandatory, and any failure on the part of the Legislature to conform to that requirement is fatal to any legislation enacted.

It is however, a well-settled doctrine that an enactment of the Legislature is presumed to be and to have been done in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, and the validity of an act should be upheld unless it is found to be clearly in contravention of a constitutional requirement, after the act and the constitutional provision have both been given a liberal construction with the view of sustaining the legislative action. Collins v. Henderson, 11 Bush, 74; C. S. Co. v. Moreland, 126 Ky. 656, 104 S.W. 762, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1075, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 479; Ragland v. Anderson, 125 Ky. 141, 100 S.W. 865, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1199, 128...