State v. Hurley

• Decision Date: 26 May 1914
• Docket Number: No. 18050.,18050.
• Citation: 258 Mo. 275,167 S.W. 965
• Parties: STATE v. HURLEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

167 S.W. 965

258 Mo. 275

STATE v. HURLEY.

No. 18050.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 26, 1914.

1. STATUTES (§ 109)—TITLE AND SUBJECT OF ACTS.

Under Const. art. 4, § 28, providing that no bill except general appropriation bills shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title, the title must generally indicate what the act contains and refer in a comprehensive manner to the subject-matter thereof; but it need not necessarily refer to subordinate matters connected therewith or reasonably within the purview of the statute.

2. STATUTES (§ 110½)—TITLE AND SUBJECT OF ACTS.

Laws 1893, p. 173, the title of which recites that it is an act to amend the Revised Statutes 1889, relating to fish, by adding thereto an article to be known as article 3, entitled "The Protection and Preservation of Fish," and to provide penalties for the violation thereof, provides in sections 5086c to 5086h, Rev. St. 1889, inclusive, as so added (Rev. St. 1909, §§ 6539 to 6544, inclusive), that no person, corporation, etc., shall possess, sell, or dispose of dynamite, giant powder, etc., without first obtaining a permit as therein provided, that to obtain such permit an affidavit shall be made that the applicant will not use or permit such explosive to be used in catching or killing fish, or disposed of without requiring a similar affidavit from purchasers, and provides the punishment for violations of such provisions. Held, that the sections mentioned contain requirements amounting in effect to a general statute regulating the dealing in and use of explosives, and having no sufficient connection with the provisions of the act for the protection and preservation of fish, or with the title thereof, and hence they violate Const. art. 4, § 28, requiring bills to contain only one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title.

3. FISH (§ 13)—USE OF EXPLOSIVES—CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.

Rev. St. 1909, §§ 6538 and 6546, prohibiting the use of poisons and explosives for killing fish, and defining such offenses as felonies, are not in conflict with section 6537, prohibiting the use of explosives in any waters of the state, except under supervision of the game and fish commissioner, and defining a violation thereof as a misdemeanor, as the offenses are different, and different punishments are consequently authorized.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; G. A. Wurdeman, Judge.

W. H. Hurley was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Reversed.

Haywood Scott, of Joplin, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen. (Paul P. Prosser, of La Plata, of counsel), for the State.

WALKER, J.

The appellant was charged in an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of St. Louis county with unlawfully retaining and keeping in his possession and under his control dynamite and giant powder, which he sold and disposed of without first having obtained a permit so to do from the clerk of the county court of St. Louis county. A motion to quash the information was filed and overruled, a jury waived, trial was had before the court on an agreed statement of facts, and appellant was found guilty and fined $50. After the usual procedure, he appeals to this court.

Error is assigned in the overruling of the motion to quash the information, and the court's refusal to declare the law to be that appellant was not guilty under the agreed statement of facts.

The grounds of the motion to quash were that the information did not state facts sufficient to show any violation of the law; did not constitute a public offense under the laws of the state; was indefinite and uncertain, and did not inform the appellant of the nature of the offense charged against him; was invalid as being violative of section 28 of article 4, Const. Mo., which provides that no bill (except general appropriation bills) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title; that the act in which the section is found under which appellant was charged, as first enacted, was entitled "An act to amend chapter 67 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri * * * relating to fish, by...