State v. Sharp

• Citation: 141 N.W. 526,121 Minn. 381
• Decision Date: 16 May 1913
• Docket Number: 18,052 -- (8)
• Parties: STATE v. JOHN SHARP
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

141 N.W. 526

121 Minn. 381

STATE v. JOHN SHARP

Nos. 18,052 -- (8)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 16, 1913

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury for Faribault county of the offense of withholding certain information requested by the state superintendent of banks concerning the State Bank of Commerce of the Village of Winnebago. Defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground (1) that it did not substantially, or at all, conform to the requirements of sections 5297 to 5300, both inclusive, as qualified by section 5305, of R. L. 1905, and (2) that the facts stated in the indictment did not constitute a public offense. The court, Quinn, J., overruled the demurrer and certified to this court the question whether the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment. Affirmed.

Order affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Bank act constitutional.

1. Chapter 201, Laws 1909, creating and establishing a department of banking, providing for a superintendent of banks, defining his powers and providing for a system of examination, audit and control of state banks, is constitutional. The provisions of the act relating to penalties do not offend against section 27, article 4 Minnesota Constitution, which provides: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. " They are all germane to the general subject expressed in the title. This is all the Constitution requires.

Making false report a felony -- knowledge of facts.

2. This statute makes it a felony for an officer of a bank to withhold any information called for by the superintendent of banks for the purpose of examination and ascertaining the true condition of the bank. If the president of a bank makes a false report in response to a call made by the superintendent of banks for information upon specific facts, the offense is committed. It is his business to know whether the reports he makes are true or false. He cannot be heard to say that he possessed no knowledge of the truth or falsity of the reports.

Requisites of indictment.

3. All that is required in an indictment is a statement of essential facts in plain and unambiguous language. Technical form is not important. Under the statutes of Minnesota no indictment is insufficient by reason of any defect in matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant. Tested by these rules, the indictment in this case is sufficient in form.

Demurrer to indictment.

4. An indictment will not be held subject to demurrer because of mere verbal inaccuracies or breaches of grammatical construction.

Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, Alexander L. Janes, Assistant Attorney General, and H. T. Bullis, County Attorney, for plaintiff.

Dunn & Carlson, Andrew C. Dunn and W. H. Hodgman, for defendant.

OPINION

HALLAM, J.

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Faribault county for the offense of withholding certain information, called for by the state superintendent of banks, under chapter 201, p. 228, Laws 1909. ^[1] He demurred to the indictment. The trial court overruled the demurrer and certified the case to this court. Several objections are raised.

1. It is contended that this act is unconstitutional, because some of its essential provisions, particularly its penal provisions, are not expressed in the title, and the act accordingly offends against the constitutional provision that "no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Section 27, article 4, state Constitution. We cannot sustain this contention. This act is entitled:

"An act to create and establish a department of banking and to provide for a superintendent of banks * * * defining the powers * * * of such superintendent of banks * * *, and to provide for a system of examination, audit, and control of state banks. * * *"

The act provides that the superintendent of banks may examine any of the officers, directors, trustees, owners, agents, clerks, customers, or depositors of any state bank touching its affairs and business; may issue subpoenas and cause them to be served and enforced; that all officers, directors, trustees, and employees of such banks and all persons having dealings with or knowledge of the affairs or methods of such institutions shall, at all times, afford reasonable facilities for examination, make such returns and reports to the superintendent of banks as he may require, produce and exhibit such books, accounts, documents and property as he may desire to inspect, and in all things aid him in the performance of his duties. It further provides that every person who shall refuse or neglect to obey any lawful direction or order of the superintendent of banks, withhold any information, book, record, paper or other thing called for by him for the purpose of examination and ascertaining the true condition of the corporation, shall be guilty of a felony.

It is true the title does not in terms mention any of these penal provisions. But this is not necessary. This court has several times held that it is not necessary that the title of an act should make reference to the penalties provided therein if they are germane to the general subject expressed. State v. Boehm, 92 Minn. 374, 100 N.W. 95, and cases therein cited. The title need not be an index or a compendium of the act. "All that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; * * * that all matters treated of should * * * be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject." Mitchell, J. in Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577, 50 N.W. 923, 28 Am. St. 382.

"If the legislature is fairly apprised of the general character of an enactment by the subject as expressed in its title, and all its provisions * * * are such as, by the nature of the subject so indicated, are manifestly appropriate in that connection, and as might reasonably be looked for in a measure of such character, then the requirement of the Constitution is complied with. It matters not that the act embraces technically more than one subject, one of which only is expressed in the title * * * so that they are not foreign and extraneous to each other, but 'blend' together in the common purpose * * * sought to be accomplished by the law." Cornell, J., in State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312, 324, 21 Am. Rep. 765.

The penal provisions of this act are germane to the general subject of the act as expressed in its title. Penal provisions of some sort are manifestly a necessary incident of any system of superintendence, examination or control of banks, and we hold that the provisions of this act are embraced within its title.

2. It is contended that the particular acts charged in the indictment do not constitute the offense of "withholding information" within the statute. The indictment charges in substance, that defendant was president of the State Bank of Commerce of Winnebago, a state bank that the superintendent of banks did duly call for, from him, for the purpose of examining and...