State v. Swiggart
| Decision Date | 26 April 1907 |
| Parties | STATE v. SWIGGART. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Obion County; R. E. Maiden, Judge.
Presentment against John Swiggart, for failure to discharge certain duties imposed on him by the general road law. From a judgment dismissing the case, the state brings error. Reversed.
Attorney General Cates, for the State.
A. J Harpole, for defendant in error.
This is a presentment found by the grand jury of Obion county against John Swiggart, road commissioner for the First civil district of said county, for failure to discharge certain of the duties imposed upon him by the general road law enacted by the General Assembly April 15, 1901. Chapter 136, p. 237, of the published Acts of that year, as amended by chapter 249 p. 580, of the published Acts of 1903.
The defendant filed a plea in abatement, averring that the presentment was not made upon the knowledge of any member of the grand jury, but upon the testimony of witnesses called by the grand jury in the exercise of inquisitorial powers, which was not authorized by any valid or constitutional law.
The district attorney, conceiving that such authority existed moved to strike the plea from the file as constituting no defense to the presentment. This motion was overruled, and, the district attorney declining to reply to the plea in abatement, the case was dismissed, and the state has prosecuted an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court, and assigns this action of the trial judge as error.
The contention of the defendant in error that the grand jury had no inquisitorial powers in cases of this character is predicated upon the insistence that chapter 249, p. 580, of the Acts of 1903, conferring such power upon grand juries, is unconstitutional and void, because it was not passed by the General Assembly with the formalities required by the Constitution, and that this appears from entries upon the journals of the Senate and House of Representatives.
The journals of the General Assembly showing the various steps taken in the enactment of statutes are not required to be specially pleaded or proven, when a statute is attacked for want of the formalities in its enactment required by the Constitution. Both houses are by the Constitution (article 2, § 21) required to keep a journal of their proceedings and publish them, except such parts as the welfare of the state may require to be kept secret, and courts will take judicial notice of all entries relating to legislation. Elliott on Evidence, vol. 1, § 44.
The caption of the general road law (chapter 136, p. 237, Acts of 1901) is in these words:
"An act to regulate the working and laying out of public roads in this state except in counties of 70,000 inhabitants and over by federal census of 1900 or any subsequent federal census."
The caption of chapter 249, p. 580, Acts of 1903, which is the act called in question, is in these words:
"A bill to be entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate the working and laying out of public roads in this state except in counties of 70,000 inhabitants and over by federal census of 1900 or any subsequent federal census," passed April 15, 1901, and approved April 22, 1901."'
This amendatory act was introduced in the Senate as "Senate Bill No. 291," and the first entry on the Senate Journal in relation to it is in these words:
"Introduction of Bills.
By Mr. McFarland--Senate Bill No. 291, an act to amend the road law as to certain counties.
Passed first reading."
Other entries upon the Senate Journal describe it as "Senate Bill No. 291, an act to amend the road law as to certain counties," and show that it passed the second and third readings, was duly enrolled, and transmitted to the House as "Senate Bill No. 291, to amend the road law."
The House Journal shows that "Senate Bill No. 291, to amend the road law as to certain counties," passed the first and second readings, and that "Senate Bill No. 291, to amend the road law so as to make it a misdemeanor for road contractors to fail to carry out contracts," failed for want of a constitutional majority, and that this action was reconsidered, and "Senate Bill No. 291, to amend the road law," passed third reading. It further appears that "Senate Bill No. 291" was signed by the speakers of the two houses and returned by the Governor with his approval. The discrepancies in the statement of the object of the bill which appear in the House Journal, showing that it failed for want of a constitutional majority, where it is described as "Senate Bill No. 291, to amend the road law so as to make it a misdemeanor for road contractors to fail to carry out contracts," its passage on third reading where it is described as "Senate Bill No. 291, to amend the road law," and its transmission back to the Senate, where it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Carter
... 165 S.W. 426 129 Tenn. 182 WEBB et al. v. CARTER et al. STATE ex rel. CARTER et al. v. WOOLLEN. THOMAS et al. v. CANNON et al. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 14, 1914 ... [165 S.W. 427] ... John A ... Pitts, of Nashville, Foster V. Brown, of Chattanooga, W. H ... Swiggart, of Union City, Sam Holding, of Columbia, L. J ... Rust, of Nashville, and F. M. Thompson, Atty. Gen., for ... appellants ... ...
-
Thiebes-Stierlin Music Co. v. Weiss
... ... judicial notice of the journals of the Legislature. R. S ... 1899, sec. 3091; 16 Cyc. of Law and Procedure, 907; State ... v. Wray, 109 Mo. 594; State v. Swiggart, 118 ... Tenn. 556; Ex parte Helton, 117 Mo.App. 609. (d) Where the ... title of a statute is ... ...
-
Todtenhausen v. Knox County
...act was passed. See cases there cited, and see, also, article 2, § 21, Constitution of Tennessee; section 5584, Sh. Code; State v. Swiggart, 118 Tenn. 556, 102 S.W. 75; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 492; Turner Hocker, 36 Fla. 362, 18 So. 767. There is no merit in the insistence that we may n......
-
Heiskell v. Knox County
... ... a proposition made to it by the owners to buy said land, and ... that the title thereto should be conveyed to the state of ... Tennessee for the use of the University of Tennessee ... It ... further appears that the Legislature of this state ... that the proceedings of the Legislature are proved by the ... journals ... This ... court has held in State v. Swiggart, 118 Tenn. 556, ... 102 S.W. 75, that the court will take judicial notice of the ... journals of the General Assembly showing the various steps ... ...