State v. Hincy

Citation58 So. 411,130 La. 620
Decision Date25 March 1912
Docket Number19,273
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
PartiesSTATE v. HINCY

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1912.

Appeal from Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia Wm. Campbell, Judge.

Information by the State against Tom Hincy. A motion to quash the information was sustained, and the State appeals. Reversed.

Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., Howard E. Bruner, Dist. Atty. (G. A Gondran and J. G. Medlenka, of counsel), for the State.

Story &amp Pugh, for appellee.

OPINION

BREAUX, C. J.

The state of Louisiana, through her prosecuting officer, in a bill of information, charged the defendant, Tom Hincy, an employe and field manager of the Crowley Oil & Mineral Company, with willfully and knowingly draining, or permitting to be drained, the waters from the wells, reservoirs, or tanks of the Crowley Oil & Mineral Company salt water into a freshwater stream or drain leading to Bayou Des Cannes, in the parish of Acadia, through which stream water is pumped for irrigating rice.

The defendant pleaded autrefois acquit.

As this plea was not mentioned by defendant in argument, we refer to it only as an incident, and conclude that it is of no importance.

Subsequently the defendant, through learned counsel, presented a motion to quash the information, on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the law under which it was prosecuted. Furthermore, that two objects were expressed in the title, and that the act itself has two or more objects.

The two objects referred to are: First, the protection of the rice planters and owners of irrigation canals. Secondly, protection of the fish.

It is also contended by defendant that the act seeks to regulate labor, or to regulate the oil industry, and that this was done by the lawmaking power without enactment, directed to other industries, on the same subject. In other words, that the act illegally discriminates against the oil industry, while other industries are free to do as they please.

The district court sustained the motion to quash, and the state has appealed.

On appeal, he urged that, as no bill of exceptions had been taken to the judge's ruling sustaining the motion to quash, the ruling must stand, and that the state was without authority to proceed further with the case.

We can only say that, in our opinion, the objection of defendant is not sustained by the rules of practice. These rules authorize the court to review errors apparent on the face of the record.

While it is true that a bill of exceptions is necessary, in order to bring up evidence needful to a decision of the point raised, it is otherwise if the issue is one of law exclusively.

Before taking up the issue for decision, we will state that the title of the act relates to the protection of the rice planters and the protection of the owners of irrigation canals by prohibiting the pollution of streams, occasioned by the inflow of salt water, of oil, and of other substances. Furthermore, the title relates to the protection of fish in the streams.

We will further state that in the body of the law the acts sought to be prohibited are more specifically described than they are in the title. It is made unlawful and a misdemeanor for any officer, manager, or employe of any corporation to knowingly and willfully let salt water, or other noxious and poisonous substances, running from pumps, reservoirs, wells, or oil fields, flow into any natural stream or drain from which water is taken for irrigation purposes.

This prohibition does not prevail between September 1st and March 1st of each year; the prohibition prevails between March 1st and September 1st of each year -- that is, the closed season. Then there follows in the act a statutory order, with which we are not concerned in this case, to owners and operators to provide reservoirs or tanks, and to keep the waters out of the waterways during the closed season, ordering these owners to pay for a watchman, night and day, to prevent leaks, breaks, secret pipes, or other violations of law. The act also commands the owners and operators of oil industries to plainly indicate to whom each reservoir or tank belongs by posting, and further directs these owners to hold these tanks and reservoirs subject to inspection by the local authorities.

The defendant is not charged with violating any part of the latter portion of the law; that is, that portion beginning with the words, "and ordering them further to pay for a watchman."

Recurring to defendant's ground of defense, the title should unquestionably be liberally construed. As act should not be set aside, declared null, unless it be evident that the constitutional requirement has been violated.

The same is true regarding the body of the act, if it contains two objects.

We have not found that either contained two objects, separate and distinct, and of such a nature as affecting the validity of either the title or the body of the act. A general object is expressed, which does not necessarily vitiate the whole law. Where the title expresses a general object, the addition of subdivisions of that object does not perforce render the whole title null. Act No. 183 of 1910.

If a rigorous interpretation were adopted and nice technicalities followed, it would result in defeating, without cause, the intention of the lawmaker.

There is no necessity of the title being a complete index to every section of the act. It is only necessary that it shall, in general terms, direct attention to the purposes of the law;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Jefferson Parish v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, 51299
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • 7 Junio 1971
    ......, to buy lands needed for the proper use of any institution under the jurisdiction of the department; and also to sell and transfer to any other state agency real property belonging to the state and under the jurisdiction of the department.' .         Act 246 of 1968 provides in part: . ...Hincy, 130 La. 620, 58 So. ......
  • State v. Lecompte
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • 10 Noviembre 1947
    ...question of whether the state was required [214 La. 135] to reserve a bill of exceptions was first raised in the case of State v. Hincy, 130 La. 620, 58 So. 411, where the contention was made that because the state had not reserved a bill of exceptions to the ruling [36 So.2d 701] of the tr......
  • Ricks v. Department of State Civil Service
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • 30 Marzo 1942
    ...... expressed in general terms, in the title of the act. All. things proper or necessary to carry out the general object,. so stated in the title, are deemed to be within the scope of. the title. Thornhill v. Wear, 131 La. 479, 59 So. 909; State. v. Hincy, 130 La. 620, 58 So. 411; Succession of Lanzetti, 9. La.Ann. 329.' State ex rel. Porterie, Atty. Gen. v. Housing Authority of New Orleans et al., 190 La. 710, 182 So. 725, 736, quoting from Southern Hide Co., Inc., v. Best et. al., 176 La. 347, 145 So. 682. 'The title of an act is. not ......
  • State ex rel. Porterie v. Housing Authority of New Orleans
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • 27 Junio 1938
    ...... general terms, in the title of the act. All things proper or. necessary to carry out the general object, so stated in the. title, are deemed to be within the scope of the title. Thornhill v. Wear, 131 La. 479, 59 So. 909;. State v. Hincy, 130 La. 620, 58 So. 411; Succession. of Lanzetti, 9 La.Ann. 329.". . . This. language has been repeated in at least three subsequent. cases: Chauvin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 177. La. 193, 148 So. 23; Tichenor v. Tichenor, 184 La. 743, 167 So. 427; Peoples Homestead ......
  • 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