Jones v. State

• Decision Date: 28 March 1927
• Citation: 112 So. 556,93 Fla. 603
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: JONES et al. v. STATE.

112 So. 556

93 Fla. 603

JONES et al. v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

March 28, 1927

Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; L. L. Parks, Judge.

Habeas corpus by John Jones, Willie Jones and John Barnes, convicted of illegal fishing, to secure their release from custody. On being remanded to custody, they bring error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Constitution does not prevent enacting special or local laws to protect fish or game, and prescribing penalties for violation thereof by valid general law (Const. art. 3, §§ 20, 21). Sections 20 and 21 of article 3 of the state Constitution do not prevent the Legislature from enacting special or local laws for the protection of fish or game in this state, and by valid general law prescribing penalties for violations of such special or local laws.

If statute's title sufficiently discloses subject-matter and territory affected, ambiquous and unnecessary phrase will not destroy its validity; title of Laws 1925, c. 10635 restricting fishing in Old Tampa Bay held valid. Where the title to an act sufficiently describes the subject-matter and territory affected thereby, the interpolation therein of an ambiguous and unnecessary descriptive phrase does not destroy the plain intent and sufficiency of the designation already made, and hence may be treated as mere surplusage. Applying this principle, the title to chapter 10635 of the laws of 1925 held valid.

That title of statute is broader in scope than provisions of body does not render it unconstitutional; if statute's title fairly gives notice of its subject so as reasonably to lead to inquiry into body thereof, it is sufficient. The mere fact that the title of an act is somewhat broader in its scope than the provisions in the body of the act does not render the act unconstitutional; the subject of the act being expressed by the title, and the rule being that, if the title fairly gives notice of the subject of the act, so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into the body thereof, it is sufficient.

Act to regulate fishing in Old Tampa Bay, north of Gandy bridge applies to all of bay north of bridge (Laws 1925, c. 10635). An act to regulate fishing in Old Tampa Bay north of the Gandy bridge will be applied to all of Old Tampa Bay north of said bridge, though some portions of it widen out so as to be outside of lines drawn due north from either end of said bridge. The language of an act will not be given such a narrow and literal interpretation as to defeat its plain purpose.

COUNSEL

J. M. Cathcart and B. A. Gregory, both of Tampa for plaintiffs in error.

J. B. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

BROWN J.

Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the county court of Pinellas county upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney for said county, charging that on a certain date they did 'unlawfully fish in Old Tampa Bay for the purpose of catching fish in said bay, north of Gandy bridge, with a gill net, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided,' etc. Upon habeas corpus proceedings before the circuit judge plaintiffs in error were remanded to custody, whereupon they took writ of error to this court.

The question involved is the validity of the statute (chapter 10635 of the Laws of Florida), for the violation of which they were convicted. It was admitted by plaintiffs in error upon the trial in the county court that they were fishing with a gill net at a point in Old Tampa Bay one mile directly south of the extremity of Cooper's Point, which is in Pinellas county, and located in a northwesterly direction from all parts of Gandy bridge.

The court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that the Gandy bridge crosses Old Tampa Bay at a point where said bay is from five to six miles wide, and that the bay widens out and extends from that point in a northerly and northwesterly direction, and that the point where the plaintiffs in error were fishing was not directly due north of said bridge.

It is contended that this statute is a local law, and violative of sections 20 and 21, art. 3, of the Constitution, which provides that the Legislature shall not pass special or local laws for the punishment of crime or misdemeanor. It has however, been held by this court that these organic provisions do not prevent the Legislature from enacting special or local laws within its discretion for the protection of fish or game in this state, and that the Legislature may by valid general laws prescribe punishments and penalties for violations of such special or local laws. Snowden v. Brown, 60 Fla. 212, 53 So. 548; Harper v. Galloway, 58 Fla. 255, 51 So. 226, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 794, 19 Ann. Cas. 235; Carlton v. Johnson, 61 Fla. 13, 55 So. 79; State ex rel. Spencer v. Bryan, 87 Fla. 56, 99 So. 327; Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 So. 722. Section 1 of chapter 10635 declares certain acts to be unlawful, and the general law attaches the penalty thereto, so that, if section 2 of the act should be eliminated as being in conflict with the cited provisions of the Constitution, the punishment inflicted upon the plaintiffs in error was lawfully...