State v. Price

• Decision Date: 30 June 1910
• Citation: 229 Mo. 670,129 S.W. 650
• Parties: STATE v. PRICE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

129 S.W. 650

229 Mo. 670

STATE v. PRICE.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

June 30, 1910.

1. STATUTES (§ 105) — TITLE — PLURALITY OF SUBJECTS.

Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title, only means that incongruous, disconnected matters having no relation to each other must not be joined in one bill, and that the title shall be a clear index of the subject-matter.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 48)—STATUTES— DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.

A legislative enactment will not be declared unconstitutional unless it appears to be so beyond all reasonable doubt when every reasonable intendment has been indulged to make it valid.

3. STATUTES (§ 114)—VALIDITY—TITLE—PLURALITY OF SUBJECTS.

Laws 1907, pp. 231, 232, entitled "An act to prohibit order houses from delivering intoxicating liquors to persons having no licenses to deal in same, and to prohibit the carrying, storing for, or delivering to another person intoxicating liquors in local option counties, and providing penalties for the violation thereof," was not unconstitutional as containing a plurality of subjects not within the title of the act, because section 1 was intended to operate primarily in those counties in which it was lawful to have dramshops and wholesale liquor houses, while section 2 provided that no person should keep, store, or deliver for or to another person intoxicating liquors, of any kind whatsoever, in any county that has adopted or might adopt the local option law.

4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 222)—LOCAL OPTION LAW—VIOLATION—INDICTMENT—NEGATIVING EXCEPTIONS.

An indictment for violating Laws 1907, p. 232, § 2, providing that no person shall keep, store, or deliver for or to another person in any local option county any intoxicating liquors of any kind whatsoever, was not defective for failure to negative the exceptions prescribed in section 3 of the act; such exceptions being matter of defense only, and no part of the offense denounced in section 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Atchison County; Wm. C. Ellison, Judge.

G. Washington Price was indicted for violating the local option law, and from an order sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded.

E. W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Jno. M. Dawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

At the May term, 1909, of the circuit court, the grand jury of Atchison county returned, in open court, the following indictment: "The grand jurors for the state of Missouri, summoned for the body of Atchison county, impaneled, charged and sworn, upon their oath present that on the 10th day of May, 1902, the act of the Legislature of the state of Missouri, approved April 5th, 1887, known as the `Local Option Law,' was duly adopted in said Atchison county and has been continuously in force as the law of the state of Missouri, in said county from that date to the present time, and still remains in force as the law of the state of Missouri in said county; that afterwards, to wit, on or about the 10th day of May, 1909, and while said local option law was in force in said county, one G. Washington Price did then and there unlawfully keep and store for and did then and there deliver to another person, to wit, Jim Tillman, certain intoxicating liquors, to wit, one quart of whisky, one quart of lager beer and one quart of brandy; he, the said G. Washington Price, not then and there being a licensed dramshop keeper, and he, the said G. Washington Price, not being then and there by law authorized to sell liquor as a wholesaler, and the said James Tillman not then and there being a person licensed to deal in same, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."

To this indictment the defendant interposed the following demurrer, at the September term of said court: "Now comes defendant, and says the indictment in this cause is insufficient in law to state a criminal offense in the following respects: First. The acts of 1907 (Laws of 1907, p. 232) on which the indictment was based, is a void act, under section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution [Ann. St. 1906, p. 185], in that the title of the act is inconsistent with and repugnant to the first section of the act. Second. The indictment omits to allege or charge that the intoxicating liquors were not ordered by the defendant for, or delivered to James Tillman for his own or family use, and was not to be sent, or was not sent direct, to the person ordering the same. Third. By section 3 of said act a person may, in a local option county, order liquors for his own or family use, when sent direct to him, which necessarily implies that another person in such local option county may lawfully deliver the liquors to the person ordering the same. The indictment does not negative this state of facts. Fourth. The said act is so vague, uncertain, indefinite, inconsistent, and irreconcilable in its provisions as to be incapable of enforcement. If, under section 3, a person may in a local option county order liquor for his own or family use from another in that local option county, then that other in such local option county may sell and deliver the liquor to him." This construction, would in effect, practically repeal the local option law. No such object was intended or expressed in the title of the act. To avoid this construction the proviso of section 3 must be rejected, which would make of section 2 absolute prohibition, even as against druggists selling and delivering liquors under a prescription. Wherefore, defendant prays the court to quash the indictment.

At the same term of the court the court sustained the demurrer and quashed the said indictment and discharged the defendant. From this judgment the state, by the prosecuting attorney of said county, took an appeal to this court in due and regular form, and the circuit court took a recognizance of the defendant. The sufficiency of the indictment presents the only question for determination by this court. This court has jurisdiction of this appeal for the reason the constitutionality of the law upon which the indictment is based was assailed in the demurrer sustained by the circuit court. In the absence of a brief on behalf of the defendant we are not advised upon what ground of the demurrer the indictment was held bad. The indictment is drawn to charge an offense under the act of the General Assembly of Missouri approved May 10, 1907 (Laws of Missouri 1907, pp. 231, 232), and entitled "An act to prohibit order houses from delivering intoxicating liquors to persons having no licenses to deal in same and to prohibit the carrying, storing for, or delivering to another person intoxicating liquors, in local option counties and providing penalties for the violation thereof." This indictment charges a violation of section 2 of the said act, which provides: "No person shall keep, store or deliver for or to another person in any county that has adopted or may hereafter adopt the local option law, any intoxicating liquors of any kind whatsoever." It was insisted that the indictment was invalid because the act under consideration violated section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution of this state, which provides: "No bills shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

On the part of the state it is insisted that the act is well enough, and that it does not embrace...