House and Lot v. State

• Citation: 85 So. 382,204 Ala. 108
• Decision Date: 12 February 1920
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 861
• Parties: HOUSE AND LOT v. STATE ex rel. PATTERSON et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

85 So. 382

204 Ala. 108

HOUSE AND LOT v. STATE ex rel. PATTERSON et al.

4 Div. 861

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 12, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge.

Bill by the State of Alabama, on the relation of T.M. Patterson against one house and lot, particularly described in the bill, and Joe Crews and others to condemn said house and lot to forfeiture and sale, because of its use as a distillery for the manufacture of unlawful beverage. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill, claimant named appeals. Affirmed.

McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.

J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

SAYRE J.

Demurrer filed by the claimant against the state's bill to condemn was overruled by the trial court, and the claimant has appealed on behalf of his property.

The bill charged that claimant and others "were operating or permitting to be operated in said house on the said described premises a distillery or plant for the making or distillation of liquors or beverages which are prohibited to be made or distilled by the laws of Alabama." The demurrer says that the statute under which the state's solicitor filed the bill is unconstitutional because it violates section 15 of the Constitution--Bill of Rights--providing "that excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted." In the same connection appellant calls attention to section 19 of the same instrument:

"That no person shall be attainted of treason by the Legislature; and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate."

By Magna Charta a freeman was not to be amerced for a small fault, but according to the degree of the fault, and for a great crime in proportion to the heinousness of it, saving to him his contenement. And Judge Cooley says that the merciful spirit of these provisions addresses itself to the criminal courts of the American States through provisions of their Constitutions. Con. Lim. (7th Ed.) 471. But if the provision of section 12 of the so-called "Bone-Dry Law" (Acts 1919, p. 6 et seq.), viz. "and the owner of said distillery or plant or any person permitting the same to exist on the premises shall forfeit to the state of Alabama all property used in connection with said illegal plant together with the buildings and lots or parcels of ground constituting the premises on which the unlawful act is performed or permitted to be performed"--if this provision be taken at its face value, the sections of the Bill of Rights named above have nothing to do with the case for they relate to legislative punishment, or legislation for the punishment, of criminal or supposed criminal offenses whereas that part of the statute to which we have referred is justified on the ground that it is a provision for the abatement of nuisances. The act is not very definite in defining or limiting the premises to be forfeited, and it might seem at first blush that it intends nothing less than a forfeiture of the entire premises in...