Fine v. Moran

• Decision Date: 06 December 1917
• Parties: FINE v. MORAN, Sheriff.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

77 So. 533

74 Fla. 417

FINE v. MORAN, Sheriff.

Florida Supreme Court

December 6, 1917

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Perre Branning, Judge.

Habeas corpus by Joseph M. Fine against D. W. Moran, Sheriff of Dade County, Fla. Petitioner remanded to the custody of the sheriff, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Browne C.J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Section 1 of chapter 7283, Laws 1917, defines the term 'prohibited liquors and beverages,' traffic in which is prohibited.

In interpreting the words of a statute, the courts perform no function of legislation, but seek only to ascertain the legislative intention; and, where the language is plain definite in meaning without ambiguity, it needs no interpretation or construction, and itself fixes the legislative intention.

The legislative intention in denouncing certain conduct or the commission of certain deeds as unlawful may be gathered from consideration of the language of the entire act, and such act construed as creating an offense as distinguished from a mere tort.

Where a statute denounces certain conduct as unlawful and the purpose of the act is to prohibit such conduct as wrongful to the degree of criminality, the statute will be construed as creating an offense within the meaning of section 3176 of the General Statutes of Florida of 1906.

Where a statute creating an offense not a felony fails to provide for punishment of such offense, it is punishable under chapter 6222, Laws of 1911 (Comp. Laws 1914, s 3176a).

Under the provisions of the Constitution of 1885, s 16, art. 3 each law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject is required to be briefly expressed in the title; but the title of an act which does not briefly express the subject of the act does not render the latter void if the title does not mislead or deceive, nor is calculated to do so.

Article 3, s 16, of the Constitution of 1885 forbids the Legislature to embrace in one act two unconnected subjects, but provisions on one subject and matter connected therewith may be embraced in the same act.

Where an act of the Legislature has for its subject 'traffic in intoxicating and nonintoxicating liquors,' it is not void as being in violation of article 3, s 16, because it contains provisions prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or keeping for sale intoxicating and nonintoxicating liquors, as that term is defined by the act.

The subject of an act may be ascertained by consideration of the several matters expressed in the title, if such matters so expressed are germane to each other and properly connected.

In the exercise of its police power the state may, through legislative enactment, prohibit the manufacture and sale of certain intoxicating and nonintoxicating beverages in certain counties which have voted to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors under the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution, and whether the nonintoxicating beverages described in the act possess deleterious qualities or may be conveniently or easily used as a cover to violations of law against the sale of intoxicating liquors are matters left largely to the legislative judgment.

A statute prohibiting the sale of intoxicating and certain nonintoxicating liquors in counties in this state which have voted to prohibit such sale under the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution, and making such sale an offense, does not violate section 20 of article 3 of the Constitution prohibiting the passage of special or local laws for the punishment of crime or misdemeanor.

COUNSEL Atkinson & Burdine and Price, Price & Eyles, all of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Van C. Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

OPINION

ELLIS J.

The plaintiff in error, Joseph M. Fine, was arrested and taken into the custody of the sheriff of Dade county under a warrant issuing out of the county judge's court based upon an affidavit by William F. Hunt, charging Fine in five counts, with a violation of chapter 7283, Laws of Florida of 1917. Fine filed his petition in the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus, and asked for his discharge from custody. The sheriff's return upon the writ averred that he had arrested and imprisoned Fine by virtue of the warrant which has been referred to. Upon the hearing the circuit judge remanded the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. To this judgment Fine was allowed and took a writ of error.

The affidavit of Hunt upon which the warrant issued against Fine contains five counts. The first charges that Fine, on the 30th day of June, 1917, did carry on the business of a dealer in 'certain nonintoxicating liquors, to wit, certain malted, fermented, and brewed liquors commonly known as 'near beer,' and did then and there sell' the same; the second count charged that the liquor sold was 'a substitute for beer, which said nonintoxicating liquor then and there possessed the same color, odor, and general appearance as beer'; the third count charged that he carried on the 'business of a dealer in, and did then and there sell certain nonintoxicating malted, fermented, or brewed liquors manufactured from malt, and of which 'maltose' was a substantial ingredient,' etc.; the fourth count charged that the liquor sold contained 'one-half of 1 per cent alcohol by volume at sixty degrees Fahrengeit,' and the fifth count charged Fine with keeping and maintaining 'a place or resort where nonintoxicating malt liquors resembling beer and being intended to be used as a substitute for beer, which said liquors contained one-half of 1 per cent. of alcohol, and which said liquors were then and there kept by the petitioner herein and upon his premises for the purpose of being drunk or used upon said premises by persons resorting there for that purpose.' Each count charged the offense to have been committed on June 30, 1917, and that prior to that time the county of Dade had voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, and that the sale of intoxicating liquors in that county was then and is now prohibited.

The statute under which the prosecution is sought to be maintained was enacted by the Legislature at the session of 1917, and approved April 24th. The chapter is numbered 7283, and the title is as follows:

'An act prohibiting the manufacture of alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, malt, and intoxicating liquors and beverages, and certain nonintoxicating liquors and beverages, traffic therein and keeping on hand in public places or for illegal sale in counties or election precincts that have or may hereafter vote against the sale of liquor; specifically defining and enumerating the liquors and beverages and classes of liquors and beverages that shall hereafter be construed as embraced within the prohibitions of this act; specifically enumerating the persons and classes of persons to whom, and the places and classes of places in which, such manufacture, traffic and keeping on hand are, or hereafter shall be, prohibited. Forbidding the keeping or maintaining, or in the aiding of the keeping or maintaining, of any place or resort where such liquors or beverages are kept to be drunk on the premises by persons resorting there for that purpose, or any club, room or other place where such liquors and beverages are received or kept for barter, sale, use or gift as a beverage, or for distribution or division among the members of any club or room for or any association where such liquors or beverages are kept for the purpose of being consumed by the members thereof their guests or other persons, either on the premises or near the same, or any place adjacent to or near such premises, where such members or others may resort for such purposes; declaring to be common nuisances certain enumerated places and classes of places where anti-liquor laws are evaded or violated and providing for their abatement as such by prohibiting the keeping or storage of such liguors and beverages by prescribing for judges, grand juries and other public officers and private citizens certain duties, looking to the better and more effective enforcement of the laws to promote temperance and suppress the evils of intemperance, and by abolishing all property rights in said liquors or beverages, by providing for abatements, injunctions and other remedial proceedings when necessary to enforce the laws to promote temperance and suppress the evils of intemperance, and by prescribing the rules of evidence relative to judicial proceedings in said matters.'

The sections of the act which are applicable to the case are the first, second, third and fifth, and are given here in full:

'Section 1. That the term 'prohibited liquors and beverages,' whether used in this act or in any other acts to promote temperance or to suppress the evils of intemperance, shall include and be deemed to embrace the following:

'First. Alcohol, alcoholic liquors, spirituous liquors, and all mixed liquors, any part of which is spirituous, foreign or domestic spirits, or rectified or distilled spirits, absinthe, whisky, brandy, rum and gin.

'Second. Vinous liquors and beverages.

'Third. All malted, fermented or brewed liquors of any name or description, manufactured from malt wholly or in part, such as beer, lager beer, near beer, porter or ale, and all brewed or fermented liquors and beverages in which maltose is a substantial ingredient, whether alcoholic or not or whether intoxicating or not.

'Fourth. And any drinks, liquors or beverages containing one-half of one per-cent. of alcohol or more by volume at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, or any other liquids or liquors manufactured or sold, or otherwise disposed of for beverage purposes,...