West v. State

• Citation: 39 So. 412,50 Fla. 154
• Parties: WEST v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 28 July 1905
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

39 So. 412

50 Fla. 154

WEST v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

July 28, 1905

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.

Petition by William C. West for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ issued, and on hearing the petitioner was remanded to custody, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where the title of an act restrictively expresses its subject, and the subject dealt with in the body of such act is correspondingly restricted, such title is constitutionally sufficient.

An entry in legislative journals, showing the tabling of a legislator's motion proposing to strike from a pending bill certain given words, is no evidence to the courts, on a question of the constitutional enactment of such bill into law, that the words proposed to be stricken by such tabled motion were or were not in fact contained in such bill at or before its enactment into law.

There is nothing in the Constitution of Florida that mandatorily requires the journals expressly to show the adoption of amendments to bills. The silence of legislative journals upon any step in the enactment of a law is not affirmative evidence to the courts that such step was or was not taken except in those particular respects wherein the Constitution mandatorily requires such journals expressly to show the action taken; such, for example, as the entry of the ayes and noes upon the final passage of a bill.

In changes of the Constitution the popular voice is the paramount act. Where a proposed amendment to the Constitution receives the affirmative votes of the required three-fifths of all the members elected to each house of the Legislature and such proposed amendment is published and submitted to the vote of the people as required, and at the election is approved and adopted by a majority of the votes of the people cast thereon, it becomes a valid part of the organic law notwithstanding the fact that the Legislature may have failed to have such proposed amendment entered at length upon the journals of the two respective houses.

COUNSEL

Wm. B. Young and Gibbons & Maxwell, for plaintiff in error.

W. J Bryan, Co. Sol., and W. H. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for the state. At the session of the Florida Legislature of 1905, the following statute was enacted: 'An act to prohibit certain games and sports on Sunday.

'Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Florida:

'Section 1. That whoever engages on Sunday in any game or sport, such as baseball, football, or bowling as played in bowling alleys, or horse racing, whether as player, manager, director or otherwise, shall be beemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

'Sec. 2. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this act be and the same are hereby repealed.

'Sec. 3. That this act shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Governor.'

According to the indorsements on the official act on file in the Secretary of State's office, it passed the House of Representatives on May 10, 1905, and the Senate on June 1, 1905, and was approved by the Governor on June 5, 1905.

Under this statute the plaintiff in error was prosecuted in the criminal court of record of Duval county upon the following information, filed by the county solicitor: 'In the name and by the authority of the state of Florida: W. J. Bryan, county solicitor for the county of Duval, prosecuting for the state of Florida, in said county, under oath information makes that William C. West, of the county of Duval and state of Florida, on Sunday, the 11th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five, in the county and state aforesaid, did unlawfully engage in a game of baseball as manager thereof, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Florida.'

Before pleading the defendant moved to quash the information upon the following grounds:

'(1) The matters and things charged in said information do not charge any violation of any law of Florida.

'(2) The matters and things charged in said information do not constitute any violation of any penal law of Florida.

'(3) The act under which the information is filed is null and void, because the act as approved by the Governor is not the same act which passed the two houses of the Legislature.

'(4) The said act as approved by the Governor differs materially from the act as passed by the Legislature.

'(5) The said act as passed by the House of Representatives contained the words, 'This bill shall not go into effect until July 1, 1906,' and said words are not in the bill as approved by the Governor.

'(6) The said act as approved by the Governor differs from the bill as passed by the House of Representatives in this; that the said act as passed by the House of Representatives contained the words 'bowling alleys,' after the word 'football,' while the act as approved by the Governor has the words 'or bowling as played in bowling alleys.'

'(7) That the said act as passed by the Senate did not contain the words, 'This bill shall not go into effect until July 1, 1906,' but did have these words in it as it passed the House of Representatives.

'(8) That the said act as passed by the House of Representatives had the words 'bowling alleys' inserted after the word 'football,' while the act as it passed the Senate has, immediately following the word 'football,' the words 'or bowling as played in bowling alleys.'

'(9) That said act violates section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution of Florida.'

The criminal court of record denied this motion, and the defendant then interposed the following plea: 'Now comes the defendant in the above-stated case, in person and attended by his counsel, and confesses in open court that he has committed the acts charged in the information filed herein, and that, if said acts constitute any violation of the penal laws of Florida, he is guilty as charged therein.' Whereupon the court imposed a fine of $25, and, in default of the payment thereof, that the defendant be confined at hard labor in the county jail for a period of 30 days.

Thereupon the defendant filed his petition in the circuit court of Duval county for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he recites and exhibits the above-detailed proceedings in the criminal court of record for Duval county, and that he is illegally restrained of his liberty in the county of Duval by the sheriff of said county, who claims the right to imprison him by virtue of the said judgment of said criminal court of record. Said petition alleges, further, that the said judgment is null and void for the reason that the matters and things charged in said information do not charge anything which constitutes a violation of any law of Florida.

(2) That the matters and things charged in said information do not constitute any violation of any penal law of Florida.

(3) The act under which the information is filed is null and void, because the act as approved by the Governor is not the same act which passed the two houses of the Legislature.

(4) The said act as approved by the Governor differs materially from the act passed by the Legislature.

(5) That said act violates section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution of Florida.

(6) That said act violates sections 1 and 6 of the Declaration of Rights of the state of Florida. That, 'there being no valid law upon which to base the said information, the said court had no jurisdiction to render the said judgment against your petitioner,' etc.

Writ of habeas corpus issued as prayed. To this writ the sheriff made return that he held the defendant under and by virtue of a judgment of the criminal court of record in and for Duval county, rendered at the June term thereof.

Upon the hearing on said writ of habeas corpus the circuit judge rendered judgment remanding the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff to serve the sentence imposed upon him by the said criminal court of record. From this judgment the defendant seeks relief here by writ of error.

OPINION

TAYLOR, J. (after stating the facts).

The only error assigned is that the court erred in making his order of July 10, 1905, remanding said petitioner to the custody of the sheriff of Duval county, Fla.

It is contended here that the...