State v. O'Day

• Decision Date: 30 June 1906
• Citation: 54 S.E. 607,74 S.C. 448
• Parties: STATE v. O'DAY et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

54 S.E. 607

74 S.C. 448

STATE v. O'DAY et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 30, 1906

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.

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, 56, 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 the Legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the title gave no intimation, and which might, therefore, be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and (3) to fairly apprise the people through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire." This provision of the Constitution should be so enforced as to guard against the evils intended to be remedied, but at the same time legislation should not be crippled or embarrassed by an unnecessary strictness of construction. Charleston v Oliver, 16 S.C. 56. Hence the courts generally agree that the details of legislation need not be...