People v. Lange
| Decision Date | 05 July 1910 |
| Citation | 48 Colo. 428,110 P. 68 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LANGE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to Cheyenne County Court; Isaac F. Jones, Judge.
William Lange was prosecuted for a violation of certain rules and regulations adopted by the State Board of Stock Inspection Commissioners, as a sanitary regulation. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the information, the People bring error. Affirmed.
Ralph Talbot, C. C. Hamlin, Dist. Atty., Thomas Ward, Jr., Special Asst. (R. W. McCrillis, of counsel), for the People.
A. E Bowe, for defendant in error.
The statute creating the State Board of Stock Inspection Commissioners contains these provisions:
Section 6390, Rev. St. 1908: 'Said board shall make such rules and regulations touching the manner of inspection of brands and live stock, and affecting quarantine and sanitary conditions, as they shall deem proper; provided, that the same do not conflict with this act.'
Section 6404: 'Any person or corporation who shall violate or disregard any brand, quarantine or sanitary provision of this act, or any brand, sanitary or quarantine regulation or order of the board, made in pursuance of its official duties, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of not more than five hundred (500) dollars or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one (1) year or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
The information filed in the county court of Cheyenne county charges that the defendant violated certain rules and regulations adopted by the state board as a sanitary regulation, and deemed by the board necessary to prevent the spread of infectious and contagious diseases among the cattle of the state, and after it was demanded of him, by the board that the cattle owned by him on a certain ranch, by sprayed and dipped, as provided by the regulations of the board. The defendant demurred to the information, upon the ground that the statute is unconstitutional and void, in so far as it attempts to confer upon the said board the power of declaring what acts or omissions should constitute a misdemeanor, for the reason that such powers could not be lawfully delegated to such board by the General Assembly. The demurrer was sustained and the defendant discharged.
In the performance of his duty, as required by section 1997, Rev St. 1908, the district attorney has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment of the county court. The county judge, in discharging the defendant, declared the statute unconstitutional, in so far as the Legislature delegated to the board the power to declare, by rules and regulations, what acts should constitute a misdemeanor.
The people have confided to the General Assembly the power of declaring what acts or omissions shall constitute a crime; but they have not confided to the General Assembly the authority to transfer this power to any other person or body. Whether the Legislature, in the act under consideration, has or has not delegated its authority to the board of stock inspection commissioners, we shall not determine. We shall, however, affirm the judgment for reasons convincing us that the section upon which the state relied to convict the defendant has been repealed, to the extent hereafter stated, by a later statute.
By the act of 1905 (Laws 1905, c. 122; Rev. St. 1908, § 6401) it is provided that, whenever it shall become known to the State Board of Stock Inspection Commissioners that infectious or contagious diseases exist among the domestic animals of any section of the state, it shall become the duty of the board to take such steps as will prevent the spread of such disease, and the board is empowered to compel the dipping, spraying, or such other treatment of said animals under such rules and regulations as the board may adopt. And the board is empowered to order the owners of such animals as it may find to be infected, or to have been exposed to such disease, to spray, dip, or otherwise treat the said animals. If the owner or persons in charge of the animals ordered treated shall fail to treat the animals as ordered by the board, then the board is authorized to seize the animals and cause them to be treated, and hold them and sell them to pay costs of inspection, the care and treatment of them, and the costs of sale.
The rules and regulations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loftus v. Dep't of Agric. of Iowa
...68 So. 348;Reims v. State, 17 Ala. App. 128, 82 So. 576;Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. State, 90 Ark. 343, 119 S. W. 288;People v. Lange, 48 Colo. 428, 110 P. 68;Whitaker v. Parsons, 80 Fla. 352, 86 So. 247;Schulte et al. v. Fitch et al., 162 Minn. 184, 202 N. W. 719;Abbott v. State, 106 M......
-
Loftus v. Department of Agr. of Iowa
...So. 348); Reims v. State, 17 Ala.App. 128 (82 So. 576); Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. State, 90 Ark. 343 (119 S.W. 288); People v. Lange, 48 Colo. 428 (110 P. 68); Whitaker v. 80 Fla. 352 (86 So. 247); Schulte v. Fitch, 162 Minn. 184 (202 N.W. 719); Abbott v. State, 106 Miss. 340 (63 So. 6......
-
Woolverton v. City and County of Denver
...but they have not confided to the General Assembly the authority to transfer this power to any other person or body.' People v. Lange, 48 Colo. 428, 110 P. 68, 69. In a very recent case, Casey v. People, supra, not involving a home rule city, we perhaps too broadly 'Only the legislature may......
-
Dominguez v. City and County of Denver
...power to courts or enforcement agencies. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516. See People v. Lange, 48 Colo. 428, 110 P. 68; Olinger v. People, 140 Colo. 397, 344 P.2d If legislation is susceptible of two interpretations, neither the trial court nor......