In re Monk

• Decision Date: 04 October 1897
• Docket Number: 865
• Citation: 16 Utah 100,50 P. 810
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE MONK

50 P. 810

16 Utah 100

IN RE MONK

No. 865

Supreme Court of Utah

October 4, 1897

Appeal from the Third district court, Salt Lake county. A. N Cherry, Judge.

Application of James T. Monk for a writ of habeas corpus. From an order refusing the writ, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Rhodes & Williams, for petitioner.

Waldemar Van Cott, against the application.

ZANE C. J. BARTCH and MINER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ZANE, C. J.:

It appears that the petitioner, James T. Monk, was recorder of the Big Cottonwood mining district, in Salt Lake county, in this state; that a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued by the district court, requiring him to deliver to James C. Jensen, recorder of the county, the records of his district, and, upon his refusal to obey the writ, he was adjudged guilty of a contempt, and committed to prison until he should deliver the records or be discharged in due course of law. It also appears that he was afterwards brought before the court on a writ of habeas corpus, and, upon a hearing, was remanded to prison, to be held in pursuance of the order of commitment. From this order refusing to liberate him, he has appealed to this court.

The authority of the court below to make the order of imprisonment depends upon the validity of section 8, c. 36, Laws Utah 1897, which, so far as involved in this case, is as follows: "The county recorders of the respective counties shall perform the duties heretofore performed by the district mining recorders in such counties, respectively; and the district mining recorders of each county shall, within thirty days after this act shall take effect, deposit the books and records pertaining to their offices with the county recorder of the county in which the district or the greater part thereof is situated. * * *" This section requires county recorders to perform the duties before performed by district mining recorders, and also required district recorders, within 30 days after the law took effect, to deposit the books and records pertaining to their offices with the county recorders. These two provisions, the petitioner insists, were not indicated by the title of the act in which they were found, as required by section 23, art. 6, of the state constitution. Appropriation bills and bills for the codification or revision of laws excepted, this section declares that "no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." This provision limits each bill to one subject, and requires that subject to be clearly expressed in its title. It requires the purpose of the bill to be clearly stated, but does not require the mention of the observances to effectuate the purpose. The subject must be expressed in the act, but an analysis of the subject need not be. The law may contain numerous sections, and each section may contain one or more provisions, provided they are limited to requisites constituting the mode or way of effecting the expressed purpose. Many details may be covered by one subject. The end to be effectuated by the law may be expressed in general terms. The purpose so expressed constitutes the subject, and the method to be provided and the means to be employed in accomplishing the purpose are embraced in the subject, and need not be specially pointed out.

The law relied upon is entitled "An act providing for the manner of locating and recording quartz and placer mining claims." The purpose expressed in the title was to provide for the manner of locating and recording quartz and placer mining claims. The term "manner," as used in the title, means the method and way of locating and recording claims, and includes the instrumentalities and means...