Hart v. State

• Decision Date: 20 July 1901
• Parties: HART. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

39 S.E. 321

113 Ga. 939

HART.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 20, 1901.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—TITLE OF ACT.

Act Dec. 16, 1897, "to amend section 413 of the Penal Code" of this state, is not unconstitutional, in that it "contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof." Const, art. 3, § 7, par. 8.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Bibb county; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.

Henry Hart was convicted of a misdemeanor, and brings error. Affirmed.

Robt. Hodges, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. Brunson, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LUMPKIN, P. J. The question upon which this case turns is whether or not the act of December 16, 1897, which declares a purpose to amend section 413 of the Penal Code, is unconstitutional, in that it "contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof." Const art. 3, § 7, par. 8. See Acts 1897, p. 37. That section reads as follows: "An owner, or person controlling a billiardtable, or ten-pin alley, who shall permit any minor to play or roll on the same, without the consent of the parent or guardian, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." The title of the amending act discloses that the legislative intent was to pass "An act to amend section 413 of the Penal Code * * * so as to make said section apply to any owner or owners, or persons controlling any pool table in this state, by adding after the words 'billiard table' and before the words 'or ten-pin alley, ' in the second line of said section 413, the following words, to-wit, 'pool table, ' and for other purposes." The enacting clause, after providing that this amendment to the above-mentioned Code section shall be made, proceeds to declare that "said section, when thus amended, shall read as follows: Any owner or owners, or persons controlling billiard table, pool table, or ten-pin alley, that shall or may permit any minor to play or roll on the same, without the consent of the parent or guardian, shall on conviction of the same, be fined in a sum not to exceed one hundred dollars for each and every offense, or imprisonment twenty days, or both, at the discretion of the court." As is obvious, the proposed amendment was not such as would make "said section, when thus amended, " so read. But, as the legislative intent is clear that the amendment referred to should bring about the result stated, effect must be given to such intent. Gilbert v. Railroad Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S. E. 673; Ryle v. Wilkinson Co., 104 Ga, 476, 30 S. E. 934.

The inquiry, therefore, arises: Was so sweeping a charge in the provisions of the Code section sought to be amended authorized by the title of the amending act? Its title gave notice that a statute was to be enacted, not only with a view to introducing into the Code section the words "pool table, " but "for other purposes." "Provisions germane to the general subject-matter embraced in the title of an act, and which are designed to carry into effect the purpose for which it was passed, may be constitutionally enacted therein, though not referred to in the title otherwise than by the use of the words, 'and for other purposes.'" Burns v. State, 104 Ga. 544, 30 S. E. 815. It follows that, in passing the statute now under consideration, "any legislation could constitutionally be embodied in the act which was germane to the general subject of amending the" Code section to which its title made reference. Mayor, etc., v. Hughes, 110 Ga. 795, 796, 36 S. E. 247. The controlling question which the case now in hand presents for our determination therefore is, were all the changes wrought in that section by the enacting clause of the above-cited act of 1897 "germane to the general subject-matter embraced in the title" thereof?

On the argument here, our attention was called to the fact that in the body of this act the general assembly undertook to prescribe an entirely new and essentially differ ent punishment; and counsel for the plaintiff in error strenuously insisted that, as the title of the amending act made no mention...