James v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1905
• Citation: 52 S.E. 295,124 Ga. 72
• Parties: JAMES v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 S.E. 295

124 Ga. 72

JAMES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 9, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

The act of February 26, 1877 (Acts 1877, p. 335), prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors upon the Island of St. Simons is not unconstitutional as containing matter different from that expressed in its title, nor as referring to two subject-matters.

If there is an irreconcilability between the domestic wine act of February 27, 1877 (Acts 1877, p. 33), and the act referred to in the preceding note, the conflict extends only to the sale of that class of wine, the sale of which is the subject of the general law, and the local act would be unrepealed, so far as it related to intoxicating liquors other than wine of the character referred to in the general law.

Error from City Court of Brunswick; A. D. Gale, Judge.

Mimie James was convicted of illegal sale of intoxicating liquors and brings error. Affirmed.

J. D Sparks, for plaintiff in error.

Jno. W Bennett, Sol. Gen., and J. T. Colson, for the State.

COBB P.J.

A sale in its broadest sense comprehends any contract for the transfer of property from one person to another for a valuable consideration. Century Dictionary; Cain v Ligon, 71 Ga. 694, 51 Am.Rep. 281. It is often used in a more limited sense as embracing only those contracts which are founded upon a money consideration. In an act prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors the word "sale" is to be construed in its broad and comprehensive sense, and therefore includes what is commonly known as barter and exchange. McGruder v. State, 83 Ga. 616, 10 S.E. 281 (5); Griffin v. State, 115 Ga. 577, 41 S.E. 997 (4); Paschal v. State, 10 S.E. 821, 84 Ga. 326. The word "sale" in the title authorized legislation upon the subject of barter. The title of the bill indicates a purpose to provide legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors upon the Island of St. Simons. This is sufficiently broad to authorize legislation reaching every part of that island. That provision in the body of the act which in terms makes the provisions of the act applicable to rivers, creeks, and inlets within the boundary line of the island is therefore within the terms of the title. The title does not in terms refer to a penalty to be imposed for a violation of the provisions of the act. But the word "prohibit," which appears in the title, is sufficiently broad to authorize legislation making penal the sale which is prohibited by the act. The law cannot effectually prohibit an act unless some penalty is imposed for its violation. Without penalty there would be no effectual prohibition. Even though the title omits the usual words "and for other purposes," a penalty for its violation is germane to the scheme of the act as...