St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. State
Decision Date | 01 June 1908 |
Citation | 111 S.W. 260,86 Ark. 343 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Error to Faulkner Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The deputy prosecuting attorney of Faulkner County filed information against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, charging it with violation of the statute requiring it to keep its waiting room supplied with wholesome drinking water.
The railway company demurred to the information. This was overruled by the court, and the railway company filed a plea to the information as follows:
The undisputed testimony shows that there was no water provided in the waiting rooms of the depot at Conway in Faulkner County for several days at the time specified in the information. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and assessed a fine of one hundred dollars. The case is here on writ of error.
Judgment affirmed.
Lovick P. Miles, for appellant.
The act is void because it is provided therein that it shall not apply to certain counties in the State. 165 U.S. 154; 146 U.S. 39; 185 U.S. 325; 49 Ark. 335; Id. 293; Id. 167; 75 Ark. 542.
Wm. F Kirby, Attorney General, and Dan'l Taylor, Assistant, for appellee.
The act is constitutional. 84 Ark. 470.
OPINIONHART, J., (after stating the facts).
The railway company contends that the information was filed under the act of April 23, 1903, and that, as the act exempts the counties of Benton, Washington and Crawford from its provisions, it is unconstitutional for the reasons enumerated in its plea. The act of April 23, 1903, is almost an exact copy of the act of March 31, 1899, with the exception of the clause exempting the counties above mentioned. The act of April 23, 1903, does not in express terms repeal the act of March 31, 1899, but only repeals all acts or parts of acts in conflict with it.
The general rule on that subject is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alexander v. Board of Directors of Crawford County Levee District
...3. If the amendatory act should be stricken out as unconstitutional, the only effect will be to reinstate the original act. 85 Ark. 346; 86 Ark. 343; 90 N.W.283; 121 514; 16 Am. St. Rep. 411. The original act is not void because, as contended by appellants, no provision is made for the asse......
-
Batesell v. American Zinc, Lead and Smelting Company
... ... N. Ala. Coal & Iron" Co. v. Beacham, 140 Ala. 422, 37 So. 227 ... \xC2" ... evidence tended to establish the following state of facts: ... Batesel ... was ... A. 444; Hardy v. Railway Co., 115 N.W. 8 and 11; 26 ... Cyc. 1172 (3); 2 ... Hill Mfg ... Co., 30 A. 16, 18; St. Louis" Cordage Co. v ... Miller, 126 F. 495.] ... \xC2" ... ...
-
In re Arkansas Railroad Rates
... ... of this state, and heard by Judge Van Devanter, one of the ... 156, 161, 59 C.C.A. 579; Mountain Copper Co. v. United ... States, 142 F. 625, 73 ... have no means of knowing the plans of the company, whether ... it will raise the rates for the ... void ( St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. State, 86 Ark ... 343, 111 ... St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co ... K.C. Southern Ry ... -- or ... an average of ... the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company and ... the ... ...
-
Faubus v. Kinney
...Senators and Existing Senatorial Districts.' Amendment 45 repealed all laws in conflict with its provisions. In St. Louis, I. M. & So. Ry. Co. v. State, 86 Ark. 343, 111 S.W. 260, this court, through Justice Hart, quoted the general rule on this subject, as 'Where there is, by a general cla......