State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 16 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 852. |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C. P. Almon, Judge.
Sam Williams was acquitted of violating the stock law, the court holding the act unconstitutional, and the State appeals. Affirmed.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and J. C. Roberts and Mitchell & Hughston, all of Florence, for the State.
A. H Carmichael and James Jackson, both of Tuscumbia, for appellee.
The prosecution is grounded on an act of the Legislature approved August 9, 1919, and published in Acts 1919, p. 194. This act is attacked, and held by the lower court to be in violation of section 104, subd. 23, and section 105 of the Constitution, and for that reason the defendant was discharged. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court notably Reynolds & Co. v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 So. 465, and many others since that time, and section 104, subd. 23, and section 105 of the Constitution of 1901, and chapter 139, art. 1, of the Code of 1907, we are clearly of the opinion that the act above referred to is unconstitutional and void.
To the Supreme Court of Alabama:
Being of the opinion that the act of the Legislature approved August 9, 1919 (Acts 1919, p. 194), is in violation of the Constitution of this state, for the reasons hereinabove stated, under and by virtue of the provisions of law, we submit the question for your determination.
Response to Certified Question.
The Court of Appeals being of the opinion that the act approved August 9, 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 194), which prohibits live stock from running at large "in all counties having a population of not less than thirty thousand nine hundred and not exceeding thirty thousand nine hundred seventy-five, according to the last or any subsequent federal census," and provides for enforcement and penalties, is in violation of subdivision 23 of section 104, and also of section 105 of the Constitution of Alabama, certifies the question to this court for determination, as provided by law.
The act cannot be a general act, since, as the court judicially knows, it applies to only one county in the state, viz. Lauderdale. Reynolds v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 So 465. Being a local act, pure and simple, it is manifestly prohibited by subdivision 23 of section 104 of the Constitution, which forbids the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goolsby v. State
... ... deposit to pay the check. ***" ... And it ... was held that "defendant was therefore not entitled to ... the affirmative charge." This case is cited with ... approval--where design was omitted from an Arizona ... statute--in George v. Williams (Ariz.) 222 P. 411, a ... charge of false prosecution where the ingredient of knowledge ... was left out; held, the charge was "lacking in ... substance." ... In ... Gustin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 558, 99 So. 54, the ... indictment conformed substantially to the provisions of the ... ...
-
Goolsby v. State
...statute. Act approved April 18, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 449, § 31); Banks v. State, 207 Ala. 179, 93 So. 293, 24 A.L.R. 1359; State v. Williams, 207 Ala. 517, 93 So. 381; D.M. Ferry & Co. v. Hall, 188 Ala. 178, 66 So. L.R.A.1917B, 620. For illustration of the application of the statutes and the......
-
Toombs v. Sharkey
...supra. For illustrations of what has been said to be arbitrary classification, see Nichols v. Walker, 33 N.W. 802 (Minn.); State v. Williams, 93 So. 381 (Ala.); Reynolds v. Collier, 85 So. 465 (Ala.) We now hope to show that this ingredient, "in a levee district where a cotton tax is impose......
- Marshall v. State