Vickers v. State

• Decision Date: 14 December 1940
• Citation: 145 S.W.2d 768
• Parties: VICKERS v. STATE. RICH v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 768

145 S.W.2d 768

VICKERS v. STATE.

RICH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 14, 1940.

Error to Circuit Court, Carroll County; W. W. Bond, Judge.

On petition to rehear.

Petition dismissed.

For prior opinion, see 142 S.W.2d 188.

Maddox, Maddox & Maddox, W. H. Lassiter, R. M. Murray, and G. C. Crider, all of Huntingdon, for plaintiffs in error.

Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CHAMBLISS, Justice.

A petition to rehear presents for the first time a challenge of the constitutionality of the Act of 1939, Chapter 49, particularly Paragraph 3 of Section 15 thereof, which we held to authorize officers of the Highway Patrol to serve search warrants in liquor cases in Carroll County.

Parenthetically it may be remarked that, while the question of constitutionality may be first raised at any time, even on a petition to rehear, the burden, always on those attacking the constitutionality of an Act of the Legislature, is increasingly heavy when raised for the first time by petition to rehear. Not only does the general presumption of constitutionality apply, but a presumption also arises from this afterthought attack that the constitutional defect alleged is not clear and obvious, since it did not before appear, either to astute and diligent counsel, or to the Courts which have construed the Act.

We have carefully considered the able argument attacking the constitutionality of the clause of the Act involved, but are not convinced that the attack is well made. The provision of the Act in question does not introduce matter independent of the general subject, but grows naturally out of it. As said in the original opinion , in this Act "The Legislature was dealing with a widespread practice of law violation likely to be aggravated in the counties left legally `dry' by the conversion of adjacent counties into legally `wet' territory under this Act of 1939." As a natural incident the Legislature might properly provide for additional means of protection of this territory left dry, in order that the "wet" privileges conferred on given territory might not adversely affect the territory left legally dry. This is all this provision does. The Act as a whole, as indicated by its caption, deals with the general subject of the regulation of the sale of liquor. Authorizing its sale under prescribed conditions, it was germane to provide that it should not be otherwise or elsewhere sold, and provide for enforcement of this limitation. The constitutional provision relied on that "no bill shall become a law, which embraces more than one subject", art. 2, § 17, has no application...