State v. Cordi

• Decision Date: 18 January 1927
• Docket Number: C. C. 394.
• Citation: 136 S.E. 505,103 W.Va. 23
• Parties: STATE v. CORDI.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

136 S.E. 505

103 W.Va. 23

STATE v. CORDI.

C. C. No. 394.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

January 18, 1927

Submitted January 12, 1927.

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 6 of chapter 83, Acts 1925, which imposes penalties upon an unnaturalized foreign-born resident of this state for owning, keeping, or permitting to remain upon any premises under his control in the state a dog of any kind, is in violation of that part of section 30, art. 6 of the Constitution, which inhibits the incorporation in an act any object which is not expressed in the title.

Case Certified from Circuit Court, Preston County.

Dominic Cordi was prosecuted, as an unnaturalized foreign-born resident, for keeping a dog. After overruling his demurrer to the warrant and motion to quash, the trial court certified its ruling. Ruling reversed.

Howard B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and J. L. Wolfe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

F. E Parrack, of Kingwood, for defendant.

LIVELY J.

Defendant Dominic Cordi, was arraigned on a warrant charging him, as an unnaturalized foreign-born resident of the state, with unlawfully owning and keeping a dog and permitting the same to remain upon premises under his control. Upon appeal to the circuit court, he demurred to the warrant and moved to quash. The court overruled the demurrer and motion, and certified its ruling for review, upon joint application of the parties.

The warrant is based on section 6, chapter 83, Acts 1925, which reads:

"It shall be unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident of this state to own, keep or permit to remain upon any premises under his control a dog of any kind within this state, and any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, before any court or justice of the peace having jurisdiction of the offense, shall be imprisoned in the county jail at hard labor not in excess of sixty days and fined not in excess of one hundred dollars, either or both, in the discretion of the court or justice trying the same."

The grounds of demurrer are that the warrant is not in proper form, that the nationality of defendant is not stated therein, that the venue is not charged, and that the section of the statute quoted is unconstitutional, as in contravention of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of section 5, art. 2, of the state Constitution, which says, "No distinction shall be made between resident aliens and citizens, as to the acquisition, tenure, disposition or descent of property," and in violation of section 30, art. 6, state Constitution, providing that no act of the Legislature shall embrace more than one object and that shall be expressed in the title, and especially that part which reads:

"But if any object shall be embraced in an act which is not so expressed, the act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed."

Passing over the grounds alleged as to the form of the warrant and the want of venue therein as not well taken, we come to the question of the constitutionality of the section as violative of that part of section 30, art. 6, of the state Constitution, above quoted, which says that, if any object be embraced in an act which is not expressed in the title, that part of the act not covered by the title shall be void. The title to the act in question is as follows:

"An act for the protection of sheep, lambs, goats, kids and other property and providing compensation to the owner for the destruction, loss or injury by dogs for any sheep, lambs, goats, kids and other property and providing for damages to persons by dogs and also providing for taxation and protection of dogs and making dogs property and fixing punishment for any violation of this act."

The title to an act must be liberally construed, in order to give validity to all of its parts. Only one object or purpose can be the subject of an act. If any part is germane to the object or purpose expressed in the title, and which, when traced back, will lead the mind to the object so expressed as the generic head, it is valid, although not expressed specifically in the title. Lewis' Sutherland, Stat. Construction (2d Ed.) § 118; State v. Mines, 38 W.Va. 125, 18 S.E. 470. And every presumption is made in favor of the validity of an act in all its parts, and it, or any portion, should never be declared unconstitutional, except when it is in plain contravention of the organic law. And if there be doubt as to its validity, that doubt must be solved in favor of its constitutionality. Booten v. Pinson, 77 W.Va. 412, 89 S.E. 985, L. R. A. 1917A, 1244; State v. County Court, 60 W.Va. 339, 55 S.E. 382. On the other hand, the Constitution in all its requirements must not be violated, and where it plainly appears that some object has crept in an act which is clearly without the purview of the title, and has no necessary or proper connection with the object expressed in the title, that incongruous part should be promptly condemned. The rule is very well stated in Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 452, 26 S.Ct. 427, 437 (50 L.Ed. 801), in this language:

"All that can reasonably be required is that the title shall not be made to cover legislation incongruous in itself, and which by no fair intendment can be considered as having a necessary or proper connection."

See Kaufle v. Delaney, 25 W.Va. 410.

...