State v. Buckner, No. 25787.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtAtwood
Citation272 S.W. 940
PartiesSTATE ex rel. GARVEY v. BUCKNER, Circuit Judge.
Decision Date17 February 1925
Docket NumberNo. 25787.
272 S.W. 940
STATE ex rel. GARVEY
v.
BUCKNER, Circuit Judge.
No. 25787.
Supreme Court of Missouri, en Banc.
February 17, 1925.
Motion for Rehearing Overruled May 23, 1925.

[272 S.W. 941]

Application by the State, on the relation of Ray B. Garvey, for a writ of prohibition against Thomas B. Buckner, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Criminal Division C. Writ denied.

Charles M. Howell, Daniel V. Howell, C. P. Le Mire, E. M. Tipton, Joseph S. Brooks, and M. E. Casey, all of Kansas City, for relator.

J. C. Rosenberger and William S. Hogsett, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

ATWOOD, J.


This is an original proceeding in prohibition. The relator is Roy B. Garvey, who is defendant in the criminal case of the State of Missouri v. Roy B. Garvey, pending in division No. 1 of the Circuit court of Jackson county, Mo. The respondent is judge of division No. 1 of said circuit court. Relator stands charged with first degree murder, alleged to have been committed on September 6, 1922. He seeks to prohibit respondent from entertaining jurisdiction and proceeding with the trial of said cause.

Relator was first proceeded against by indictment filed September 27, 1922. After numerous continuances, resettings, and one change of venue, the case was dismissed on February 18, 1924. On May 28, 1924, the prosecuting attorney filed an information against relator, charging him with the same crime, upon which information defendant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the case was set for trial June 16, 1924, thereafter set for July 28, 1924, thereafter continued on defendant's application to September 8, 1924, thereafter reset for September 15, 1924, when relator filed application for change of venue from Judge Austin's division, which was division No. 9 and designated as criminal division A, which change of venue was granted, and the case transferred to Judge Buckner's division, which was division No. 1, and designated as criminal division C. On September 16, 1924, relator filed application for continuance, which was overruled, and the case set down for trial on the 22d day of September, 1924. On September 18, 1924, relator filed his petition here for writ of prohibition, and assigned the following grounds:

(1) That Act March 11, 1921, is unconstitutional and void, because (a) it contains more than one subject, in violation of section 28, art. 4 of the Constitution of Missouri; (b) no notice of intention to apply for the passage of said bill Was published, in violation of section 54, art. 4 of said Constitution.

(2) That the transfer of the case by division No. 9 to division No. 1 was in violation of court rules 46 and 48, pertaining to criminal causes, and therefore void.

(3) That the rule adopted by circuit court on January 1, 1923, and the said rule thereafter adopted, are null and void, and in direct conflict with said act of the Legislature.

(4) That relator's application for continuance, filed on September 16, 1924, was improperly overruled.

Preliminary writ was issued. Respondent's return denies the existence of the grounds specified and relator's right to the relief prayed, and sets up new matter mainly relating to additional court rules or orders. After issue joined by relator's reply, Hon. William C. Lucas, was appointed by this court as special commissioner, who took and returned testimony on issues of fact. Relator's claims will be considered in the order pleaded.

He first says that Act March 11, 1921, is unconstitutional and void because it contains more than one subject, in violation of section 28, art. 4 of the Constitution, which provides that—

"No bill * * * shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

It is uniformly held that this provision should be liberally construed, that the title need only indicate the general contents of the act, and, if the contents of the act fairly, relate to and have a natural connection with the subject expressed in the title, they fall within the title. State v. Mullinix, 301 Mo. 385, 257 S. W. 121; Ex parte Harvey Karnstrom, 297 Mo. 384, 249 S. W. 595; State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27, 237 S. W. 742; State ex rel. McClintock v. Guinotte, 275 Mo. 298, 204 S. W. 806; Coffey v. Carthage, 200 Mo. 616, 98 S. W. 562; 36 Cyc. 1017, 1028.

The act in question consists of eleven sections, found on pages 220-222 of the Laws of Missouri 1921, and the title reads as follows:

272 S.W. 942

"An act in relation to the administration of justice in Jackson county; abolishing the criminal court of Jackson county and the office of judges and clerk thereof, abolishing the office of marshal of said county, and vesting the jurisdiction of said criminal court in the circuit court of Jackson county, and providing for the performance of the duties now performed by said clerk of the criminal court and said marshal of Jackson county."

This act relates to the "administration of justice in Jackson county." The act deals with this single, general subject. True, this subject is amplified, but it is singly and clearly expressed in the title. Every provision of the act fairly relates to, and has a natural connection with, the subject expressed in the title, and therefore falls within the title. There is no multiplicity. Moreover, the provisions enacted are all harmonious and compatible, and therefore not incongruous. Where the contents of the act are harmonious, and have a natural connection with one subject, singly and clearly expressed in the title, it is of no consequence that the General Assembly may not have fully legislated on the subject, that some provisions of the act are not specifically named in the title, or that, by refinement of terminology, the minutiae of the act itself can be separately catalogued. This point is ruled against relator.

Relator further says that the act is a local or special law, in violation of section 53, att. 4...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. Co. v. Bates, No. 41456.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1949
    ...1945; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; Thomas v. Buchanan County, 330 Mo. 627, 51 S.W. (2d) 95; State ex rel. Garvey v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 85 S.W. (2d) 543. (3) Application of constitutional provision to act in question. Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo......
  • Graves v. Purcell, No. 34169.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...not set forth in the particulars expressed in the title, are not out of harmony with them. [State ex rel. v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; State ex rel. v. Terte, 324 Mo. 402, 23 S.W. (2d) 120; State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 56, 133 S.W. 1; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 13......
  • Hines v. Hook, No. 33086.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 18, 1935
    ...State v. Mullinex, 301 Mo. 385, 257 S.W. 121; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 305 Mo. 685, 267 S.W. 608; State ex rel. v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; State ex rel. v. Schmoll, 313 Mo. 693, 282 S.W. 702; Levee Dist. v. Darroh, 316 Mo. 398, 289 S.W. 925; Burge v. Ry. Co., 244 Mo. 76, 148 S.......
  • State ex Inf. Taylor v. Currency Services, Inc., No. 40563.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 14, 1949
    ...affects the people of the state as a whole. Sec. 7890. R.S. 1939; 59 C.J. 724, sec. 311; State ex rel. Garvey v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; 12 C.J. 1129, 1130; State ex rel. Rolston v. Railroad, 246 Mo. 512; Hawkins v. Smith, 242 Mo. 688; Bachtel v. Wilson, 204 U.S. 36. (12) The st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. Co. v. Bates, No. 41456.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1949
    ...1945; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; Thomas v. Buchanan County, 330 Mo. 627, 51 S.W. (2d) 95; State ex rel. Garvey v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 85 S.W. (2d) 543. (3) Application of constitutional provision to act in question. Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo......
  • Graves v. Purcell, No. 34169.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...not set forth in the particulars expressed in the title, are not out of harmony with them. [State ex rel. v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; State ex rel. v. Terte, 324 Mo. 402, 23 S.W. (2d) 120; State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 56, 133 S.W. 1; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 13......
  • Hines v. Hook, No. 33086.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 18, 1935
    ...State v. Mullinex, 301 Mo. 385, 257 S.W. 121; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 305 Mo. 685, 267 S.W. 608; State ex rel. v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; State ex rel. v. Schmoll, 313 Mo. 693, 282 S.W. 702; Levee Dist. v. Darroh, 316 Mo. 398, 289 S.W. 925; Burge v. Ry. Co., 244 Mo. 76, 148 S.......
  • State ex Inf. Taylor v. Currency Services, Inc., No. 40563.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 14, 1949
    ...affects the people of the state as a whole. Sec. 7890. R.S. 1939; 59 C.J. 724, sec. 311; State ex rel. Garvey v. Buckner, 308 Mo. 390, 272 S.W. 940; 12 C.J. 1129, 1130; State ex rel. Rolston v. Railroad, 246 Mo. 512; Hawkins v. Smith, 242 Mo. 688; Bachtel v. Wilson, 204 U.S. 36. (12) The st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT