Ellery v. State, Criminal 785
Decision Date | 01 June 1933 |
Docket Number | Criminal 785 |
Parties | SID W. ELLERY, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Henry C. Kelly, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Messrs Baker & Whitney and Mr. Lawrence L. Howe, for Appellant.
Mr. K Berry Peterson, Attorney General, and Mr. C. T. McKinney Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Sid. W. Ellery, at the time of the acts with which this case is concerned superintendent of banks for the state of Arizona and hereinafter called defendant, was convicted of a violation of section 214, Revised Code of Arizona 1928, which reads as follows: and has brought this appeal before us. There are a number of assignments of error, but we shall consider them rather in the logical order of the propositions of law raised thereby than by the specific assignments made.
Section 4. The incorporation herein of initiated and referred measures is not to be deemed a legislative reenactment or amendment thereof, but only a mechanical inclusion thereof into the revised laws and statutes.
Then follows in regular form the usual signatures of the officials who are required to sign any bill before it becomes law.
There can be no doubt whatever from the foregoing recital of facts that it was the intention of the legislature of Arizona to adopt the entire statutory law of Arizona as a new and single measure, but that feeling that this perhaps would be unconstitutional it took the added precaution of passing separate bills on various subdivisions of such law and then, after this was done, of adopting the general enactment above quoted. If it was in its power to adopt an entire Code by a single act under a single title, there is no doubt that this was done, for Senate Bill 100, supra, was subsequent in its enactment to all of the separate bills, and the validity of the subject matter thereof, so far as it is constitutional, depends, not upon the passage of the previous separate bills, but upon the adoption of the later single one, for if a law be passed by the legislature and later adopted in regular form a second time, it is the second enactment which gives it force and validity as law from that time and not the first one.
Let us then consider whether a legislature may revise and codify the entire statutory law under one title, and if so, what that title must contain? This question was considered by the Supreme Court of Washington in Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267, 28 P. 520. In that case the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. Corbin
...to the subject of the title and having a natural connection therewith is properly included in the body of the act. Ellery v. State, 42 Ariz. 79, 22 P.2d 838 [(1933)], or if it is germane to the subject expressed in the title, it is constitutional. In re Lewkowitz, [70 Ariz. 325, 220 P.2d 22......
-
State v. Hoffman
...880; Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Hilvert, 63 Ariz. 171, 160 P.2d 331; Hill v. Gila County, 56 Ariz. 317, 107 P.2d 377; Ellery v. State, 42 Ariz. 79, 22 P.2d 838. To affirm the conviction, as the majority has done, where the facts do not constitute the offense prohibited by statute, is to c......
-
Conway v. State Consolidated Publishing Co., Civil 4269
... ... 12-202). The 1928 Code, with such change, was regularly ... enacted by the legislature (Ellery v ... State, 42 Ariz. 79, 22 P.2d 838) and whatever is in ... it must be treated as put there by ... ...
-
Nemec v. Rollo
...on the purchase price. See Pierpont v. Hydro Manufacturing Company, Inc., 22 Ariz.App. 252, 526 P.2d 776 (1974); Ellery v. State, 42 Ariz. 79, 22 P.2d 838 (1933); Portner v. Tanner, 30 Wyo. 85, 216 P. 1069 (Wyo.1923). The written contract between the parties can thus only be interpreted as ......