State v. Southern Railway Company In Mississippi

• Decision Date: 06 November 1916
• Citation: 72 So. 837,112 Miss. 23
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY IN MISSISSIPPI

72 So. 837

112 Miss. 23

STATE v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY IN MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 6, 1916

October 1916

APPEAL from the circuit court of Leflore county, HON. F. E. EVERETT Judge.

The Southern Railway Company in Mississippi was indicted for a violation of Laws 1912, chapter 136, section 3 and from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the state appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Geo. H Ethridge, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

Cathings & Cathings, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment for an alleged offense under section 3, chapter 136, Laws 1912, which provides that:

"Each dining car, railroad, or sleeping car company doing business within the state, shall post two copies of this act in conspicuous places in each passenger coach or sleeping car."

The alleged violation of the statute as charged is that appellant--

"a corporation, a railroad company doing business within said state, in said county, on the 23d day of September, 1914, unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully, did, then and there, fail and neglect to post in two conspicuous places in its passenger coach No. 1363 two copies of an act entitled 'An act to prohibit hotels, restaurants, cafes, dining cars, railroad companies and sleeping car companies from allowing "tips" to be given to employees; to prohibit employees of hotels, restaurants, cafes, dining cars, railroad companies and sleeping car companies from receiving same,' the same being chapter 136 of the Laws of Mississippi for 1912."

One of the grounds upon which it is sought to sustain the judgment of the court below is that:

"The indictment wholly fails to allege that passenger coach No. 1322 was being used by the appellee at that time as a part of a train engaged in hauling passengers."

The language of the statute is broad enough to require the posting of the statute in all passenger coaches, not only while actually being used for the transportation of passengers, but also while not in use, but standing idle upon the track. It is clear, however, that it is the purpose of the statute to make criminal only the failure to post it in passenger coaches while actually being used for the transportation of passengers. So, to say that appellant failed to post the statute in one of its passenger coaches without more, simply charges it with not doing a thing the doing of which is enjoined or not by the statute, according to circumstances; and the rule is that "where the language of the statute is so specific as to give notice of the act made unlawful, and so exclusive as to prevent its application to any other acts than those made unlawful," it is sufficient "to charge the offense by using only the words of the statute." "But where the act prohibited does not clearly appear from the language employed, or...