State v. Dinnisse
| Decision Date | 28 March 1892 |
| Citation | 109 Mo. 434,19 S.W. 92 |
| Parties | STATE v. DINNISSE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Laws 1885, p. 151, § 1, entitled "An act to protect the property of manufacturers, bottlers, and dealers in mineral waters, soda water, and other beverages from the loss of syphons, bottles, and boxes," provides that manufacturers, bottlers, and dealers in mineral waters, soda-water, or any other beverages whatsoever, who may use bottles, jugs, or any other vessel on which shall appear the name of the manufacturers, bottlers, or dealers, or other marks of ownership, may file with the recorder a description of such bottles, etc., and of the name or marks of ownership of the same, and publish notice thereof. Section 2 provides that a certified copy of the recorded description, with a copy of the notice, shall be prima facie evidence of title. Section 3 makes it a misdemeanor for any one without the written consent of the owner to trade in or to willfully erase the name or marks on any bottle, etc., so marked or stamped. Held, that whether the subject of the act "was clearly expressed in its title," as required by Const. art. 4, § 28, was a fairly debatable question, so as to give the supreme court jurisdiction; it being evident that the title had been inaccurately copied while the act was under the consideration of the legislature.
2. The act does not protect the manufacturer of a liquid preparation used as a beverage, and known as "Wild Cherry Bitters," since the words, "or other beverages," as used in the act, refer to the class known as "mineral" or "soda" waters.
Appeal from St. Louis court of criminal correction.
Information against John Dinnisse for misdemeanor. Motion to quash information sustained. State appeals to St. Louis court of appeals. Upon objection by defendant that a constitutional question was involved, case transferred to supreme court. Affirmed.
B. D. Kribben and J. M. Holmes, for the State. John A. Talty, for respondent.
The court of criminal correction of the city of St. Louis sustained a demurrer to the information for a misdemeanor under which defendant was prosecuted, and the state appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals. Upon objection by the defendant that a constitutional question was involved, the case was transferred to this court. The prosecution was for violation of an act of the legislature passed and approved in 1885. The title to the act is as follows: "An act to protect the property of manufacturers, bottlers, and dealers in mineral waters, soda water, and other beverages from the loss of syphons, bottles, and boxes." Laws 1885, p. 151, (now sections 3880-3882, Rev. St. 1889.) The unconstitutionality of the act is urged upon the ground that its subject was not clearly expressed in the title, and also that the bill contained more than one subject.
1. The first question to be determined is whether such a constitutional question is involved as gives this court jurisdiction of the appeal. Section 28, art. 4, of the constitution provides that no bill (except a general appropriation bill) "shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." Section 1 of the act in question provides that "all partnerships, corporate bodies, manufacturers, and bottlers, and dealers in mineral waters, soda-waters, or any other beverages whatsoever, who may use boxes, bottles, syphons, jugs, or any other vessel, upon which shall appear the name or names of the partnership, corporate bodies, dealers, manufacturers, or bottlers, or other marks of ownership, stamped, engraved, cut, etched, or in any other manner affixed thereon," might file with the recorder a description of such boxes, bottles, syphons, jugs, or other vessels, and of the name or names or marks of ownership of the same, and publish notice thereof. Section 2 provided that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thayer
...v. Van Brunt, 147 Mo. 20, 47 S. W. 787, holds an appeal will not lie from a judgment quashing an information. The case of State v. Dinnisse, 109 Mo. 434, 19 S. W. 92, was an appeal by the state from a judgment quashing an information in the court of criminal correction of the city of St. Lo......
-
The State v. Thayer
...Van Brunt, 147 Mo. 20, 47 S.W. 787, holds that an appeal will not lie from a judgment quashing an information. The case of State v. Dinnisse, 109 Mo. 434, 19 S.W. 92, was an appeal by the State from a judgment quashing information in the court of criminal correction of the city of St. Louis......
-
The State ex rel. Homer v. Purl
...special or particular words which precede them. This is a well established and familiar rule of statutory construction. [State v. Dinnisse, 109 Mo. 434, 19 S.W. 92; Louis v. Herthel, 88 Mo. 128; State ex rel. v. Bersch, 83 Mo.App. 657.] The books are full of adjudications upholding the vali......
-
State v. Pierce Petroleum Corporation
... ... only to persons or things of the same general nature or class ... as those enumerated. State ex rel. v. Corkins, 123 ... Mo. 56; State v. Krueger, 134 Mo. 269; State v ... Longfellow, 95 Mo.App. 660; St. Louis v ... Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; State v. Dinnisse, 109 ... Mo. 434; State ex rel. v. Fry, 186 Mo. 198; R. S ... 1899, sec. 9747. (d) In seeking the intention of a public ... enactment it is always permissible to consider the ... consequences of any construction proposed to be given to it ... Limar v. City of Limar, 128 Mo. 210; Fruin ... ...