State v. Boise

• Decision Date: 17 November 1897
• Citation: 51 P. 110,5 Idaho 519
• Parties: STATE v. BOISE
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

51 P. 110

5 Idaho 519

STATE v. BOISE

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 17, 1897

RULES OF COURT-TRANSCRIPTS.-A compliance with the rules of this court in the preparation of transcripts on appeals in criminal cases will be insisted upon.

CONSTITUTION-STATUTES WHEN ENACTMENT OF, QUESTIONED.-Where the constitutionality of the enactment of a statute is put in question, it is imperative that the trial court should be furnished with a copy of the legislative journals certified by the secretary of state.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County.

Reversed and remanded.

Attorney General R. E. McFarland, for the State.

The defendant, William L. Boise, was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of what is known as the "Anti-gambling Law," passed at the fourth session of the Idaho legislature, and approved March 8, 1897, before a justice of the peace of Nez Perces county, and a fine of $ 200 was imposed against him. The case was tried before the justice, a jury having been waived by both parties. The only question presented by this case is, Were the provisions of article 3 section 15 of the constitution complied with in the passage of the act? The record of the passage of the said act is almost identical with that of the "fee bill," which was held invalid by this court in Cohn v. Kingsley, ante p. 416, 49 P. 985.

James W. Reid, for Respondent.

From an inspection of the journals of the Senate and House set out in the stipulation in the record, it will be seen that the bill was not read on three separate days, nor the ayes and noes taken as required by the constitution. It was materially amended in the Senate and returned to the House, and all that was done in reference to it thereafter is recorded in these words, from the House Journal March 5, 1897, the House being in session and the Speaker in the chair, to wit: "Mr. Workman moved that the amendments proposed by the Senate to House Bill No. 165 be concurred in, which motion prevailed." Besides other errors, this method of finally disposing of the act rendered it void. (Cohn v. Kingsley, ante, p. 416, 49 P. 985.)

HUSTON, J. Sullivan, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.

OPINION

HUSTON, J.

--In the preparation of the transcript in this case there does not seem to have been even an attempt to comply with the rules of the court. There is scarcely a requirement of the rules that has not been ignored. Some latitude is usually extended...