Schiller v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1905 |
| Citation | 38 So. 706,49 Fla. 25 |
| Parties | SCHILLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; R. M. Call, Judge.
Habeas corpus by William Schiller. From an order denying the writ petitioner brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. The provision contained in section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution, that 'each law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title,' forbids the Legislature to embrace in one act two different and unconnected subjects; but provisions on one subject and matters properly connected therewith may be embraced in one act. Only the subject is required to be briefly expressed in the title; the matters properly connected with such subject are not required to be expressed in the title.
2. Chapter 5106, p. 3, Laws 1903, is 'An act imposing license and other taxes, providing for the payment thereof and prescribing penalties for doing business without a license, or other failure to comply with the provisions thereof.' The subject that may be embraced in this act is the imposing of license and other taxes. Providing for the payment of such license and other taxes, prescribing penalties for doing business without a license, and prescribing penalties for failure to comply with the provisions of such licenses, are matters properly connected with the subject of imposing license and other taxes, and they may properly be embraced in one act.
3. It is competent for the Legislature to attach a restriction or limitation to a license to sell liquors that if the holder thereof sells at a particular time during the period for which the license was issued he shall be deemed guilty of selling without a license, and to provide that a violator of the restrictions and limitations shall be deemed guilty of selling without a license. These provisions are germane to and properly connected with the subject of imposing license taxes, and consequently they may be embraced in an act with such subject.
4. An act imposing license and other taxes may have embraced therein provisions that no license issued under the act shall allow the holder thereof to sell liquors on Sunday, and that if the holder sells at times in which the act prohibits the selling of the same he shall be deemed guilty of selling liquors without a license, as these provisions are matters properly connected with the subject of imposing license and other taxes.
5. Under a provision in an act that, if the holder of a license to sell liquors sells at times forbidden by the act, he shall be deemed guilty of selling without a license, and the time forbidden is between 12 o'clock Saturday and 12 o'clock Sunday night, the penalty is not for selling on Sunday as such, but for selling in violation of the license.
COUNSEL J. B. Christie, I. L. Farris, and William H Harwick, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error presented to the judge of the circuit court for Duval county a petition alleging that he is illegally restrained of his liberty, and unlawfully detained in custody, by John Price, as sheriff of Duval county, Fla.; that, at the August, 1904, term of the criminal court of record for Duval county, petitioner was tried and convicted on an information charging that on the 26th day of June, A. D. 1904, the petitioner did engage in the sale of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors between the hours of 12 o'clock on Saturday night, the 25th day of June, A. D. 1904, and 12 o'clock on Sunday night, the 26th day of June, A. D. 1904; that upon conviction he was sentenced under section 13 of chapter 5106, p. 8, of the Laws of Florida, Acts of 1903, to pay a fine of $500 and costs, and to be imprisoned at hard labor in the county jail for 30 days, and, in default of the payment of said fine and costs, to be still longer confined in the county jail for 60 days, thus showing that petitioner was sentenced under that part of section 12 of chapter 5106, p. 7, of the Laws of Florida, making it a crime to sell liquors, wines, etc., on Sunday; that petitioner is advised and believes, and so alleges, that the said portion of section 12, c. 5106, p. 7, of the Laws of Florida, Acts of 1903, is unconstitutional and void, and that the judge of said court had no power or right to sentence petitioner upon conviction of the crime charged in the information, except to sentence him under section 2639 of the Revised Statutes of 1892 of the State of Florida, which imposes a maximum fine of $50; that petitioner alleges that the part of section 12, c. 5106, p. 7, aforesaid, creating and making it a crime to sell spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors on Sunday, in unconstitutional and void, in that it is in conflict with section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution of the state of Florida, which requires that each law enacted in the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. Petitioner prays that a writ of habeas corpus may issue, and that petitioner may be discharged from said custody, or that petitioner may be allowed bail, in a reasonable amount, conditioned that he be and appear at the next term of the criminal court of record of Duval county, Fla., to receive a fit, proper, and legal sentence for said crime of which he was convicted, etc.
A writ of habeas corpus was issued, and upon its return the judge held that the judgment of the criminal court of record is valid and binding, and that the restraint is not illegal. The petitioner was remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Duval county, and writ of error to this court was allowed by the judge.
The Constitution of Florida, in section 16 of article 3, ordains that 'each law enacted in the Legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title.' Under this constitutional limitation the Legislature may not include in one act two different and unconnected subjects, but provisions on one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, may be embraced in one act. Only the subject is required to be briefly expressed in the title. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bryan
...supra; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Burns, supra; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Hazel, supra; Potter v. Lainhart, supra; Schiller v. State, supra. 3. 'It is sufficient that the title should express the subject and that it is not necessary for it to set out 'the matter properly connecte......
-
State v. Daniel
... ... incongruous in itself, and the title is not misleading or ... deceptive but fairly expresses the general subject or object ... of the law, the mere generality of the title is not an ... objection. 25 R. C. L. pp. 853, 854, § 99; Holton v ... State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; Schiller v ... State, 49 Fla. 25, 38 So. 706; Ex parte Gilletti, 70 ... Fla. 442, 70 So. 446; Ex Parte Pricha, 70 Fla. 265, ... 70 So. 406; Saussy v. Davidson, 75 Fla. 422, 78 So ... 336; State v. Henry, 15 La. Ann. 297; Smith v ... State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 894 ... The act ... ...
-
Colonial Inv. Co. v. Nolan
... ... disclosed or may be readily inferred or easily spelled out ... from the details expressed in the title, it will be ... sufficient. State ex rel. Moodie v. Bryan, 50 Fla ... 293, 39 So. 929, and the line of cases following that ... decision ... Looking ... only to the ... bills of sale above referred to, relate to matters properly ... connected with such general subject. Schiller v ... State, 49 Fla. 25, 38 So. 706. If the clause of the ... title which is objected to, when considered in the light of ... the title alone, ... ...
-
Fine v. Moran
... ... expressed are germane to each other and properly connected ... In the ... exercise of its police power the state may, through ... legislative enactment, prohibit the manufacture and sale of ... certain intoxicating and nonintoxicating beverages in certain ... on one subject and matters connected therewith [74 Fla. 436] ... may be embraced in the same act. See Schiller v ... State, 49 Fla. 25, 38 So. 706; Teston v. State, ... 50 Fla. 138, 39 So. 787. In the latter case the court had ... under consideration an ... ...