State v. Bethea

• Decision Date: 16 May 1911
• Parties: STATE v. BETHEA.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

55 So. 550

61 Fla. 60

STATE v. BETHEA.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

May 16, 1911

Error to Circuit Court, De Soto County; J. B. Wall, Judge.

Hugh C Bethea was arrested under an indictment for violating Laws 1909, c. 5929, and brought habeas corpus. From a judgment discharging him from custody, the State brings error. Reversed.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution requires the subject only of an act to be 'briefly expressed in its title.'

The provision of the Constitution that the subject of an act shall be 'briefly expressed in its title' requires only that the subject shall be at least briefly expressed in the title; and it does not authorize the court to pass upon the brevity with which the subject is expressed in the title where the title is not misleading, or does not violate some principle of organic law.

The subject of an act may be expressed generally in the title but, even if the general subject is not expressly named therein, if it is clearly disclosed or may be readily inferred or easily spelled out from the details expressed in the title, it will be sufficient.

While the one general subject of chapter 5929, Acts of 1909, may not be specifically expressed in the title, the matters stated at some length in the title are appropriate to one general subject and matter properly connected therewith. The subject may be ascertained by a consideration of the several matters expressed in the title, and there is nothing contained therein to mislead or to render the title violative of organic law.

The numbers and titles of bills are given in the journals for the purpose of identification and information as to the contents of the bill. Even though a portion of a lengthy title is omitted in some of the journal entries, yet, where it clearly appears that the entries apparently refer to the same bill and give fair notice of its contents, this is at least prima facie sufficient.

Where the journals clearly show that a bill was passed by the House of Representatives by its full title and was transmitted to and read by the Senate by the same title, and that the bill was passed by the Senate by an abbreviated, but not misleading, title, but it appears that, although the journal entries as to the title were not uniform, the same bill by a sufficient title was considered in and duly passed by each house, the act is not void on the ground that it appears the same bill was not passed by each house.

COUNSEL Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., and H. S. Phillips State Atty., for the state.

Jno. W Burton, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C.J.

Hugh C. Bethea was indicted and arrested on a capias for a violation of chapter 5929, Acts of 1909. On habeas corpus proceedings he was discharged; the court holding that the statute is void because it was not enacted in accordance with the requirements of organic law, in that it appears from the legislative journals that the act was passed by the house by its full title, and was then passed by the Senate by a title embracing the first half of the full title only. A writ of error was allowed and taken by the state under section 2257, Gen. St. 1906.

The title to chapter 5929 is as follows:

'An act to require certain sworn statements of campaign expenses from candidates in primary elections; making certain requirements in the form of ballots used in primary elections; requiring certain duties of inspectors in properly identifying persons to whom ballots are given in primary elections; providing for the absenting of employés from their work on primary election days; prohibiting candidates from making donations of things of value; prohibiting persons from distributing certain writing against any candidate in the primary on primary day; providing for compensation of inspectors of the primary in certain cases; prescribing penalties for violation of the primary laws of this State by officials, electors and other persons; prohibiting the use or solicitations of money to influence primary elections, including payment of poll taxes; prohibiting tax collectors from receiving poll taxes from persons other than the one owing it, and providing penalties for violations of the primary law by members of committees, inspectors and clerks of primary elections and for the publication of this act.'

Section 15 of the act under which the indictment was found is as follows:

'Sec 15. Any person who shall give, lend, solicit, request, demand or receive directly or indirectly, any money, intoxicating liquor, or any other thing of value, of whatever nature or kind whatsoever, or the promise thereof, either to influence a vote or under pretense of being used to procure the vote of any other person or persons; or to be used at any poll or other place prior to or on the day of any primary election, for or against any candidate for office, shall be deemed guilty of the infamous crime of bribery and, upon conviction thereof in any court of record, shall be sentenced to disfranchisement by the judge of such court for a term of not more than ten years, and to the county jail for not less than one year; and for the conviction of a second offense under this section, the first being alleged and proven, such offender shall be by sentence of the court, forever thereafter disfranchised and deprived of his right to vote at a primary in this State, and to be imprisoned in the State penitentiary not more than five years. Prosecutions may be had under this section by indictment in the circuit court or by information...