Mangeldorf v. State
| Decision Date | 24 April 1913 |
| Citation | 8 Ala.App. 302,62 So. 373 |
| Parties | MANGELDORF. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1913
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; O.J. Semmes, Judge.
J.C Mangeldorf was convicted of violating an act for the preservation of oysters, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Webb & McAlpine, of Mobile, for appellant.
R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis J. Inge, of Mobile, for the State.
The charge made against the appellant in this case is based upon an alleged violation of the statute which was before us for consideration in the case of State v. Parker, 5 Ala.App. 231, 59 So. 741. That case presented the question of the constitutional validity of the requirement made by section 9 of the statute (Acts 1911, p. 458) that three cents per barrel be paid "on all oysters caught and taken from the public reefs and private bedding grounds, for packing, canning, shipping or for sale" while the present case presents the question of the constitutionality of that feature of the same section of the statute which makes the charge imposed by it applicable to "all oysters canned, packed, shipped, or sold in and from this state," and also the questions as to whether the conduct of the defendant which is shown by the agreed statement of facts constituted a violation of the last-mentioned provision, and as to whether the statute makes a violation of that provision of it a criminal offense.
The question of the constitutionality of the particular feature of the provision contained in section 9 which now is in question may be disposed of by referring to what was said in the opinion rendered in the Parker Case. The validity of that feature of the statute has not been questioned upon any additional ground. Indeed, there has been no such insistence in argument in this case upon the mere suggestion of the invalidity of the feature of the statute upon which this prosecution rests as to call for a discussion of that suggestion.
There is nothing in the terms of the provision in question to indicate that the Legislature in enacting it undertook to impose any charge or burden upon any act or transaction which is one of interstate commerce. The mere fact that the "oysters canned, packed, shipped, or sold in and from this state," upon which it is alleged that the exaction required by the statute had not been paid, had come into this state from beyond its borders, did not exempt them from the operation of the taxing and police powers of the state after they had ceased to be the subjects of interstate commerce by reaching their destination in this state and were there at rest, to be "canned, packed, shipped, or sold" when and as it suited the purposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett v. State
...Capital City Water Co. v. Board of Revenue, 117 Ala. 303, 23 So. 970; Goldsmith v. Huntsville, 120 Ala. 182, 24 So. 509; Mangeldorf v. State, 8 Ala.App. 302, 62 So. 373. every question in this case has been recently decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama in the case of Robert Smith v. Stat......
- Robinson v. State
- Burton v. State
-
Balsam v. State
...and J.P. Mudd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. THOMAS, J. The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Mangeldorf v. State, 8 Ala.App. 302, 62 So. 373, parte Mangeldorf, 185 Ala. 33, 64 So. 598, and State v. Parker, 5 Ala.App. 231, 59 So. 741, which settle, adversely to appell......