State v. Eaton
Decision Date | 19 October 1926 |
Citation | 250 P. 233,119 Or. 613 |
Parties | STATE v. EATON ET AL. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George W. Rossman Judge.
William Eaton and Ed. Flowers were convicted of setting up and operating a distillery for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and they appeal. Affirmed.
The defendants were indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of setting up and operating a distillery for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, in violation of section 7 chapter 30, Gen. Laws of Oregon 1923, chapter 157, Gen. Laws of Oregon 1925. They appeal from a judgment of sentence to a term of one year in the penitentiary.
W. N Gatens, of Portland, for appellants.
Clarence A. Beckman and Jay H. Stockman, Deputy Dist. Attys., both of Portland (Stanley Myers, Dist. Atty., of Portland, on the brief), for the State.
The only question raised upon this appeal is the constitutionality of the law violated. Chapter 157, General Laws of Oregon 1925, page 234, is as follows:
Section 7 of chapter 30, Laws of 1923 (page 48) is as follows:
The penalty for violation of chapter 30 of the Laws of 1923 was provided in section 13 of the Act (Laws of 1923, page 50). The part of said section applicable to this case is as follows:
It is contended on behalf of defendants as follows:
(citing Constitution of Oregon, art. 4, § 20; State v. Wright, 14 Or. 365, 371, 12 P. 708; Warren v. Crosby, 24 Or. 558, 34 P. 661; State v. Hawks, 110 Or. 497, 512, 222 P. 1071; First Nat. Bank v. County Court, 110 Or. 74, 222 P. 1077).
That the Act of 1925, chapter 157, is void for the reason that it seeks to amend section 13 of chapter 30, Laws of 1923, and does not set it forth at length as amended.
The presumption is always in favor of the validity of a legislative act, and its clear repugnancy to the Constitution must be shown. The title of a statute will be held to be sufficient, if the matter is reasonably connected with and germane to the title, under article 4, section 20, of the Constitution, requiring an act to embrace but one subject and matters connected therewith, which subject must be expressed in the title. The title of an amendatory act is sufficient, if it refers to the particular section it is intended to alter and is not repugnant to art. 4, § 20, of the Constitution, unless the provisions of the amendment are such as could not have been included in the original act as matters properly connected therewith. Murphy v. Salem, 49 Or. 54, 58, 87 P. 532; David v. Portland Water Committee, 14 Or. 98, 12 P. 174; State v. Phenline, 16 Or. 107, 17 P. 572; Ex parte Howe, 26 Or. 181, 37 P. 536.
In the case of State v. Phenline, supra, this court, at page 109 of 16 Or. (17 P. 574) said:
The title of the act of which section 7 is a part, which section is sought to be changed by the amendatory act is, in part, as follows:
"An act: prohibiting the making or possession of any mash, wort or wash fit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spicer v. Benefit Ass'n of Ry. Employees
... ... the amount recovered in the action. The foregoing and its ... antecedents have been the law of this [142 Or. 589] state ... since the 1919 legislative assembly. Pursuant to the ... provisions of that law, the circuit court allowed the ... plaintiff ... the original act under its title. For a collation of our ... holdings see State v. Eaton, 119 Or. 613, 250 P ... 233. The courts in other states operating under similar ... constitutional provisions have held to the same ... ...
-
State ex rel. Overhulse v. Appling
...Fox v. Galloway, 1944, 174 Or. 339, 347, 148 P.2d 922; Wright v. Beveridge, 1927, 120 Or. 244, 248, 251 P. 895; State v. Eaton et al., 1926, 119 Or. 613, 616, 250 P. 233; Pacific Elevator Co. v. Portland, 1913, 65 Or. 349, 384, 133 P. 72, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., It is patent, then, that we are not ......
-
Sprague v. Fisher
...Creek, (1915) 74 Or. 592, 144 P. 505, 146 P. 475; Clayton v. Enterprise Electric Co., (1916) 82 Or. 149, 161 P. 411; State v. Eaton, (1926) 119 Or. 613, 250 P. 233; Nickerson v. Mecklem, 169 Or. 270, 126 P. (2d) The title of the 1929 personal income tax law is as follows: "AN ACT providing ......
-
Federal Cartridge Corp. v. Helstrom
...544, 130 A.L.R. 1278, and is presumed to be constitutional. Tompkins v. District Boundary Board, 180 Or. 339, 177 P.2d 416; State v. Eaton, 119 Or. 613, 250 P. 233. Courts will declare a statute invalid only if manifestly unreasonable and reasonableness is primarily a matter for the legisla......