State v. Huber
| Citation | 40 S.E.2d. 11 |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 9867, 986.6.,s. 9867, 986.6. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. HUBER. SAME. v. FALLETTY. |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An amendment to a statute by article and section, which is germane and conforms to the general purposes of the statute being amended, does not violate Section 30 of Article VI of the Constitution of this State, which inhibits the Legislature from passing an act embracing more than one object, and which requires that object to be expressed in the title thereof.
2. Sections 15 and 15-b of Article 16, Chapter 15, Acts of the Legislature 1945, so far as they authorize courts of record, under their original jurisdiction, to entertain complaints relating to alleged violations of law in respect of the sale or distribution of nonintoxicating beer, and which define the procedure to be followed on such complaint, and authorize the revocation or suspension by such court of licenses issued by the West Virginia Nonintoxicating Beer Commissioner for such sale or distribution, are unconstitutional; and an order entered in a proceeding thereunder by a circuit court is void.
Error from Circuit Court of Fayette County.
Proceedings by State of West Virginia against Fred Huber and against Charley Falletty to revoke licenses to sell nonintoxicating beer. From judgment revoking the licenses, Fred Huber and Charley Falletty bring error.
Reversed, proceedings dismissed, and order entered.
H. E. Dillon, Jr., and Chas. E. Mahan, both of Fayetteville, for plaintiff in error.
Ira J. Partlow, Atty. Gen., Kenneth E. Hines, Asst. Atty. Gen., and T. C. Town-send and M. E. Boiarsky, both of Charleston, for State, defendant in error.
T. C. Townsend and M. E. Boiarsky, both of Charleston, for United States Brewers Foundation, Inc., amicus curiae.
These cases involve the action of the Circuit Court of Fayette County, upon separate hearings and the entry of separate orders therein, on April 26, 1946, by which licenses to sell nonintoxicating beer at the respective places of business owned by defendants in the City of Mount Hope, Fayette County, West Virginia, were revoked. The proceedings originated under the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 15, and 15-b of Article 16, Chapter 15, Acts of the Legislature 1945, and the first step therein as against each of the defendants was the filing, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Fayette County, of a complaint by one Albert Taylor in which certain violations of Section 13, Article 16, aforesaid, are alleged. This was followed by notice to each of the defendants, in the name of the Prosecuting Attorney of Fayette County, in which notice the time and place set for a hearing on the complaint in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, was stated. There was a demurrer to each of the complaints, and also a motion for a bill of particulars. The demurrer was overruled, but the motion for a bill of particulars was sustained, which was furnished. This was followed by a hearing on each of the original complaints and bills of particulars, on which evidence was taken, at the end of which hearings separate orders were entered revoking the license of each of the defendants, to be effective thirty days from the date of such order. On June 20, 1946, we awarded a writ of error in each of said cases. The original complaints and bills of particulars in the two cases are substantially the same; the evidence, except in minor and unimportant particulars, is the same; the persons in respect of whom the defendants are alleged to have violated the law are the same; and the legal questions involved are identical. Therefore, on motion of counsel for the parties, and by leave of court, the two cases have been briefed and orally argued as one case, and in our discussion they will be so treated.
In the petition for writs of error in these cases the assignment of error was under four heads: (1) Failure to set forth in the complaints in detail the facts constituting alleged violations of law; (2) failure of the bill of particulars to set forth in detail the facts alleged to constitute violations of law; (3) the lack of substantial evidence to support the charges; and (4) that the action of the court in revoking the licenses of the defendants was contrary to the law and evidence and without appreciable evidence to sustain it. The constitutional question whether the trial court, under the provisions of Sections 15 and 15-b of Article 16, Chapter 15, Acts of the Legislature 1945, had jurisdiction to hear the cases was not raised. At the time of the granting of the writs of error counsel were requested by the Court to discuss this question on the final hearing. It may not be amiss to state at this point that upon considering the applications for writs of error, this Court was impressed with the importance and far-reaching consequences of the enactment of the Legislature, which conferred upon circuit courts and other courts of record authority to entertain proceedings to revoke licenses to sell nonintoxicating beer, and was unwilling to permit the question of the constitutionality of that enactment to pass unnoticed. In the briefs and in the oral arguments by counsel for the parties that question has been fully and ably presented.
In the brief of counsel for plaintiffs in error, the errors relied upon for reversal are: (1) The court erred in revoking thelicenses of the defendants without basis of sufficient or appreciable evidence and clearly contrary to the preponderating testimony; and (2) the statute under which the licenses were revoked, in so far as it gave concurrent jurisdiction to circuit courts, is unconstitutional and void. Under points and authorities relied upon for reversal plaintiffs in error say: (1) That the complaint and bill of particulars did not set forth in detail the facts alleged to constitute violations of law upon which revocations were made; (2), (3), and (4) raise the question of the burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence; and under (5) it is contended that Chapter 15, Article 16, Acts of the Legislature 1945, in so far as it purports to grant concurrent jurisdiction to courts of the State to hear complaints as to alleged violations of the nonintoxicating beer statute, and to revoke licenses permitting sale of beer, is unconstitutional, and to support this point three separate grounds are relied on: (a) Because it ignores the separation and division of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Government, and purports to delegate to the judiciary powers which are distinctively administrative and legislative; (b) because under Section 30, Article VI, Constitution of West Virginia, the title of the bill fails to embrace the object sought to be effected by the enactment; and (c) because in providing different grounds and different procedures, without classification, and applicable to identically the same person, there was denied to defendants equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
It is obvious that the first question presented is the constitutionality of the Act of the Legislature under which the Circuit Court of Fayette County assumed jurisdiction in these cases, and entered the orders of revocation aforesaid; and the first point which we must determine is whether the title of the Act was sufficient, because even if the Legislature had the right to impose upon courts of record the power and duty to revoke licenses to sell nonintoxicating beer, it could do so only by an enactment effectuated by a legislative procedure in accord with the Constitution.
Section 30 of Article VI of our Constitution provides: Plaintiffs in error contend that the title of Chapter 15, Acts of the Legislature 1945, is defective because it does not point out that it was intended to grant to courts of record the powers which are the subject of this controversy.
The determination of this question requires an outline of prior legislation affecting the sale of nonintoxicating beer. The Code of 1931 contains no reference to non-intoxicating beer. The first legislation on this subject was enacted March 11, 1933. Chapter 24, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session 1933. That Act was found defective as to its administrative features, and otherwise, and at the First Extraordinary Session of the Legislature 1933, by Chapter 20 of the Acts of that session, there was enacted, on April 12, 1933, a comprehensive law, providing for the sale of nonintoxicating beer, regulating the sale thereof, and repealing the former Act. This latter Act assumes to amend Article 12, Chapter 11 of the Code, which is the license statute. By that Act, Section 1 of Article 12, Chapter 11 of the Code, was amended to include the following: "(z) Manufacture, sell or distribute, either at retail or wholesale, nonintoxicating beer as defined in section ninety-one of this act." Then followed Sections 91 to 102, both inclusive, added to Article 12 of Chapter 11 of the Code.
Next followed an Act of the Legislature, session of 1937. By Chapter 12 of the Acts of that session, a new and comprehensive law covering the sale of nonintoxicating beer was enacted. The title of that Act reads as follows: "An Act to amend chapter eleven of the code of West Virginia, one thousand nine hundred thirty-one, as amended, by repealing sections ninety-one to one hundred three, inclusive, of article twelve, and by adding article fifteen, all relating to nonintoxicating beer." This Act repeals the entire 1933 Act, mentioned above, except Section 1, and adds Article 15 to Chapter 11 of the Code. This Article should have been designated as Article 16, for Chapter 66, Acts Second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Easton
... ... the supreme court of appeals jurisdiction ... " (footnotes omitted)). In this regard, not only must an interested party raise the constitutional challenge, but determination of the constitutional issue must be necessary and vital to the resolution of the appeal. State v. Huber, 129 W.Va. 198, 206, 40 S.E.2d 11, 17 (1946). Cf. Syl. pt. 2, State v. Michael, 141 W.Va. 1, 87 S.E.2d 595 (1955) ("Where a constitutional question, not involving the jurisdiction of the trial court or this Court, was not raised specifically in the trial court or in this Court, and the ... ...
-
Dostert, In re
... ... property rights for retired and active participating plan members, and these rights are enforceable and cannot be impaired or diminished by the State." Syl. pt. 1, Wagoner v. Gainer, 279 S.E.2d 636 (W.Va.1981) ... 9. Under West Virginia Constitution art. VIII, § 8, any judge ... 79, 83, 150 S.E.2d 449, 452 (1966); State ex rel. Richardson v. County Court, 138 W.Va. 885, 890-91, 78 S.E.2d 569, 573-74 (1953); State v. Huber, 129 W.Va. 198, 209-11, 40 S.E.2d 11, 18-19 (1946); Sims v. Fisher, 125 W.Va. 512, 524-25, 25 S.E.2d 216, 222 (1943) ... 22 The issues of ... ...
-
State ex rel. Sahley v. Thompson
... ... Graney, 146 W.Va. 22, 119 S.E.2d 833; The West Virginia State Bar v. Earley, 144 W.Va. 504, 109 S.E.2d 420; State ex rel. Winter v. Brown, 143 W.Va. [151 W.Va. 346] 617, 103 S.E.2d 892; State ex rel. Richardson v. The County Court of Kanawha County, 138 W.Va. 885, 78 S.E.2d 569; State v. Huber, 129 W.Va. 198, 40 S.E.2d 11; 168 A.L.R. 808; Harbert v. The County Court of Harrison County, 129 W.Va. 54, 39 S.E.2d 177; Sims v. Fisher, 125 W.Va. 512, 25 S.E.2d 216; Danielley v. City of Princeton, 113 W.Va. 252, 167 S.E. 620; State ex rel. Baker v. County Court of Tyler County, 112 W.Va. 406, ... ...
-
Wiseman v. Calvert
... ... , 1949, Regular Session, are legislative and not judicial in nature, within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 24, of the Constitution of this State ... 3. Chapter 83, Acts of the Legislature, 1949, Regular Session, in so far as it relates or may be applied to municipalities in ... In State v. Huber, supra, the Legislature attempted to confer upon circuit courts the power to pass upon the revocation of licenses for the sale of nonintoxicating ... ...