Patton v. State

• Citation: 49 So. 809,160 Ala. 111
• Parties: PATTON v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 13 May 1909
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

49 So. 809

160 Ala. 111

PATTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 13, 1909

Appeal from Washington County Court; Samuel B. Browne, Judge.

Joe D Patton was convicted of the crime of carrying a pistol, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Turner Wilson & Tucker, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DENSON J.

The defendant was convicted in the county court of Washington county for the crime of carrying a pistol concealed about his person. The term of the court at which the conviction was secured was held at St. Stephens on the 7th day of July 1908. The defendant has appealed, and here insists that the judgment of conviction is void, because the court was not authorized by law to be held at St. Stephens--that the law fixed Chatom as the place where the court should be held.

On January 27, 1907, there was held in Washington county an election at which it was determined that the county seat of that county should be removed to Chatom. The validity of the election was assailed, but it was upheld in the case of Commissioners v. Bowling, 151 Ala. 561, 44 So. 465 and Chatom became the county seat of the county, as the result of that election, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1903, entitled "An act to provide for holding elections on the question of changing or locating county seats, etc." Acts 1903, p. 117. Section 17 of this act was amended by the act of March 2, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 251); and by the terms of the amendatory act it is perfectly clear that no court of record could be legally held in Washington county, after the expiration of 12 months from January 27, 1907 (the day upon which the election was held), at any place other than Chatom, the new county seat. But the Legislature, at the special session held in 1907, passed an act, entitled "An act to extend the time for the completion of the courthouse and jail buildings at Chatom, Washington county, Alabama." Section 1 of this act, after extending the time within which the courthouse and jail should be completed, and requiring that such buildings should be completed in time to enable the circuit court to hold its fall term, 1908, at Chatom, provides: "And pending the final completion of said buildings and until said fall term of said court, all courts of said county shall be held at St. Stephens, Alabama." Loc. Acts Sp. Sess. 1907, p. 28.

The constitutionality of this act, so far as the provision above quoted is concerned, is assailed, in brief of appellant's counsel, upon the idea that the subject thereof is not one expressed in, or covered or suggested by, the title to the act, nor necessary or proper to the full rounding out of an enactment upon the subject which is expressed in the title. Const. 1901, § 45. In Bell's Case, this court, quoting from Division of Howard County, 15 Kan. 194, said: "The 'subject' to be contained in a bill may be as broad and comprehensive as the Legislature may choose to make it. It may include innumerable minor subjects, provided all these minor subjects are capable of being so combined as to form only one grand and comprehensive subject; and if the title of the bill, containing this grand and comprehensive subject, is also comprehensive enough to include all these minor subjects as one subject, the bill and all parts thereof will be valid." Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 87, 22 So. 453; Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533; Builders', etc., Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ala. 202, 24 So. 416. The...