Runnels v. State

• Decision Date: 10 June 1929
• Docket Number: 28041
• Citation: 122 So. 769,154 Miss. 621
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: RUNNELS v. STATE

122 So. 769

154 Miss. 621

RUNNELS v. STATE

No. 28041

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 10, 1929

Division A

1 STATUTES. Provision relating to liberation of one committed to jail for vagrancy, if invasion of pardoning power, held separable from provisions fixing penalty (Constitution 1890 section 124; Code 1906, section 5058).

Provision of Code 1906, section 5058, that person committed to jail for vagrancy should not be liberated from sentence by payment for time required to be served, even though constituting invasion of pardoning power fixed in the Governor by Constitution 1890, section 124, was nevertheless entirely separable from other provisions of act fixing penalty for violation thereof and did not require holding the act unconstitutional.

2. HUSBAND AND WIFE. Parent and child. Husband is liable for support of wife and children.

Husband is, by virtue of marriage relation, liable for support of his wife and children.

3. VAGRANCY. In vagrancy prosecution based on nonsupport, evidence of misconduct of defendant's wife prior to marriage held not admissible (Code 1906, section 5055, subd. k).

In prosecution for vagrancy under Code 1906, section 5055, subd. (k), based on failure to support wife and child, refusal to permit defendant to cross-examine wife with reference to acts of sexual intercourse with other men prior to her marriage was not erroneous, since, even though such acts were shown, they would not justify him in abandoning his wife.

HON. W. L. CRANFORD, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Smith county, HON. W. L. CRANFORD Judge.

Anderson Runnels was convicted on a charge of vagrancy, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

A. M. Edwards, of Mendenhall, for appellant.

Chapter 71, section 3332, paragraph or subdivision k of Hemingway's Code, is void because it is an attempt to and if carried into effect will infringe upon the pardoning power vested in the Governor of the state.

State v. Jackson, 143 Miss. 745.

Rufus Creekmore, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

Where two statutes which repealed a particular statute have been declared unconstitutional, the legal effect is the same as if the repealing statutes had never been enacted.

25 R. C. L., sec. 166, p. 914; Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 8 S. & M. 9; People v. Menshing, 187 N.Y. , 79 N.E. 884, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 625; State v. Rice (Md.), 80 A. 1926, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 344; Smith v. Dirckx (Mo.), 223 S.W. 104, 11 A. L. R. 510; Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, at 442, 30 L.Ed. 178, 6 S.Ct. 1121.

The pardoning power vested in the Governor by the Constitution is not infringed upon by sec. 3332, subdivision of Hemingway's Code 1917.

Warwick v. State, 102 Miss. 143, 59 So. 2; Daniels v. State, 110 Miss. 440, 70 So. 458.

A statute requiring the giving of a peace bond is not unconstitutional.

Vigouroux v. State, 136 Miss. 505, 101 So. 577; Ex parte McInnis, 98 Miss. 773, 54 So. 260.

A husband, by virtue of the marriage relation, becomes liable for the support of his wife and children.

Dunbar v. Mayer & Co., 43 Miss. 679; East v. King, 77 Miss. 738; Galtney v. Wood, 149 Miss. 56, 115. So. 117.

OPINION

COOK, J.

The appellant, Anderson Runnels, was indicted in the circuit court of Smith county on a charge of vagrancy, the indictment being based upon subdivision (k) of section 5055, Code of 1906, which defines who are vagrants. He was convicted on this charge, and sentenced to serve a term of thirty days in the county jail; and from this conviction and sentence he prosecuted this appeal.

From the testimony offered by the state, it appears that the appellant and his wife, Mrs. Carley Runnels, were married in Smith county on the 28th day of September, 1926; that after their marriage they lived with the appellant's mother-in-law until the latter part of November, 1926, when the defendant, without any cause whatever, left his wife and home, and remained away until Christmas Eve; that on that day he returned to his home, and remained with his wife until the night of Christmas Eve, when he again went away, and has never returned; that in August, 1927, a child was born to defendant's wife, and she testified positively that the defendant was the father of this child. The testimony for the state was to the effect that the defendant left his wife and home without any cause whatever for do doing; that, when he abandoned his wife, she had no money or means of support, and that at the time of the trial she had no way of earning a living for herself and the child; that she was compelled to continue to live with her mother, who was a widow with five children, whose only means of support was her physical labor, supplemented by a small pension amounting to from fifteen to twenty-five dollars per month.

The defendant testified that he left his wife because she was unfaithful to him, and he had been informed that she had sexual intercourse with another man. He offered the testimony of one witness, who testified that he had sexual intercourse with defendant's wife after her marriage to defendant; and he also offered the testimony of another witness, who testified that he had sexual intercourse with her a short time prior to her marriage, but the testimony of the latter witness was excluded upon objection.

The first point argued by counsel for the appellant is that the court below erred in overruling a demurrer to the indictment, on the ground that the provisions of the chapter on vagrancy which prescribed the penalty to be imposed upon conviction of the offense is unconstitutional and void, because it invades the pardoning power vested in the governor by section 124 of the Constitution of 1890.

The appellant was indicted under subdivision (k) of section 5055 of the Code of 1906, which provides that "every person who shall abandon his wife or family, without just cause, leaving her or them without support, or in danger of becoming a public charge," is a vagrant, and shall be punished as such.

This provision of the statute dealing with vagrancy has been twice expressly repealed, and twice revived, by reason of the fact that the repealing statutes were held to be unconstitutional. It was first repealed by chapter 212, Laws of 1920, which was "An act relating to desertion and non-support of wife by husband, or of children by either father or mother, and providing punishment therefor."

In the case of State v. Sansome, 133 Miss. 428, 97 So. 753, this act was held to be violative of section 27 of the Constitution of 1890, which requires that all felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment; and the court there held that the unconstitutional provisions of this statute were not separable from the...