State v. O'day

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtJONES
Citation54 S.E. 607,74 S.C. 448
Decision Date30 June 1906
PartiesSTATE. v. O'DAY et al.

54 S.E. 607
74 S.C. 448

STATE.
v.
O'DAY et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 30, 1906.


Statutes—Validity—Subject and Title of Act—Safe Cracking.

Act Feb. 19. 1904, 24 St. at Large, p. 396. entitled "An act to provide punishment for safe crackers." is not unconstitutional, in that the subject of the act is not expressed in the title, in violation of Const, art. 3, § 17; the act providing that any person convicted of using any explosive in and about a safe with intent to commit larceny or other crime shall be deemed guilty of a felony.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Statutes, §§ 136-139, 158-160.]

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Lancaster County; O. W. Buchanan, Special, Judge.

Charles O'Day and John Fisher were convicted of safe cracking, and appeal. Affirmed.

Williams & Williams, for appellants.

D. C. Ray, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

JONES, J. The appellants were indicted under the act entitled "An act to provide punishment for safe crackers, " approved February 19, 1904. 24 St. at Large, p. 396. The jury found them guilty with a recommendation to mercy, and they were sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor for 15 years. Both in a motion to direct a verdict of not guilty and in a motion for a new trial appellants contended that the act of 1904, supra, violates section 17, art. 3, of the Constitution, in that the subject of the act is not expressed in its title, and this is the sole question presented by this appeal.

[54 S.E. 608]

We agree with the circuit court in holding that the statute is constitutional. The title of the act has been stated above. The body of the act is as follows: "Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina, that any person convicted of using any explosive in or about a safe used for keeping money or other valuables, with intent to commit larceny, or any other crime, shall be deemed guilty of felony and be sentenced to the penitentiary during the term of his life: Provided, that if the jury recommend the defendant to the mercy of the court, a sentence of not less than ten years imprisonment may be imposed, in the discretion of the court." In Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 143, 144, which is quoted with approval in Charleston v. Oliver, 16 S. C. 47, 50, the purpose of the constitutional provision in question is said to be: "(1) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; (2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Clarke v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., No. 14137.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1935
    ...of the act are germane thereto as means to accomplish the object expressed in the title. Connor v. Railroad, 23 S. C. 427; State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 448, 54 S. E. 607.' * * * " 'It is not necessary that the title should be an index of the contents of the statute.' Briggs v. Greenville C......
  • State Ex Rel. Richards v. Moorer, (No. 12746.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 12, 1929
    ...of the act are germane thereto as means to accomplish the object expressed in the title. Connor v. Railroad, 23 S. C. 427; State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 448, 54 S. E. 607." The controlling principle of construction Is that stated in Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421, 423: "......
  • State Ex Rel. Coleman v. Lewis, No. 14323.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 30, 1936
    ...as means to accomplish the object expressed in the title. Connor v. Green Pond, W. & B. Railroad Co., 23 S.C. 427; State v. O'Day, 74 S.C. 448, 54 S.E. 607.' * * * " 'It is not necessary that the title should be an index of the contents of the statute.' Briggs v. Greenville County,......
  • Crawford v. Johnston, No. 14136.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1935
    ...to it, may be embraced in the body of the act without violating this provision of the Constitution. State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. [448], 449, 54 S. E. 607; Aycock-Little Co. v. Southern Ry., 76 S. C. 331, 57 S. E. 27; Johnson v. Road & Highway Commission, 97 S. C. [205], 212, 81 S. E. 502.&q......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Clarke v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., No. 14137.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1935
    ...of the act are germane thereto as means to accomplish the object expressed in the title. Connor v. Railroad, 23 S. C. 427; State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 448, 54 S. E. 607.' * * * " 'It is not necessary that the title should be an index of the contents of the statute.' Briggs v. Greenville C......
  • State Ex Rel. Richards v. Moorer, (No. 12746.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 12, 1929
    ...of the act are germane thereto as means to accomplish the object expressed in the title. Connor v. Railroad, 23 S. C. 427; State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. 448, 54 S. E. 607." The controlling principle of construction Is that stated in Lillard v. Melton, 103 S. C. 10, 87 S. E. 421, 423: "......
  • State Ex Rel. Coleman v. Lewis, No. 14323.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 30, 1936
    ...as means to accomplish the object expressed in the title. Connor v. Green Pond, W. & B. Railroad Co., 23 S.C. 427; State v. O'Day, 74 S.C. 448, 54 S.E. 607.' * * * " 'It is not necessary that the title should be an index of the contents of the statute.' Briggs v. Greenville County,......
  • Crawford v. Johnston, No. 14136.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1935
    ...to it, may be embraced in the body of the act without violating this provision of the Constitution. State v. O'Day, 74 S. C. [448], 449, 54 S. E. 607; Aycock-Little Co. v. Southern Ry., 76 S. C. 331, 57 S. E. 27; Johnson v. Road & Highway Commission, 97 S. C. [205], 212, 81 S. E. 502.&q......
  • 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