-
BRICKEN, P. J. The caption of the act under which this indictment was drawn, and upon which the defendant was tried and convicted, is as follows:
“To further suppress the evils of intemperance; to prohibit the manufacture, sale, giving away or having in possession any still, apparatus, appliance or any device or substitute therefor to be used in the manufacture of prohibitive liquors and beverages.” Laws 1919, p. 1086.
Defendant demurred to the indictment assigning, in substance, that this act was violative of section 45 of the Constitution 1901, in that, it contained more than one subject, it being contended by appellant that section 1 of the act contains one subject, and that section 4 thereof contains another and different subject, and that, as to this latter section (4), no reference thereto is made in the title of the act, supra.
The two sections are as follows:
“Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any perlón, firm or corporation in this state to manufacture, sell, give away or have in possession any still, apparatus, appliance, or any device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing any prohibited liquors or beverages. * * *
“Section 4. That when any person is convicted of violating the provision of this act, there shall be charged in the bill of cost the sum of $50.00 to be allowed the sheriff or other person who furnished the evidence and-brought about the conviction and who shall satisfy the presiding judge that he is the person entitled to said sum and shall receive from the judge a certificate to that effect.”
[1-3] We cannot accord to the insistence of the defendant; and we hold that the demurrers were properly overruled. It is true that section 45 of the Constitution 1901 requires that every law enacted by the Legislature (save those enumerated in that section) must be single, that is, that it shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. It has been many times held, however, that this provision must receive a reasonable construction, so as to give it effect. Bates v. State, 118 Ala. 102, 24 South. 448; State v. Bogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 South. 909, 32 L. R. A. 520. If the subject is expressed in general terms, everything necessary to make a complete enactment, or which results as a complement of general expression, is included. It is not required that every clause or section of the statute be indicated or specified, but it is sufficient if each section or clause is referable to or cognate with the subject expressed in the title, the provision is satisfied. The question involved here comes clearly within this rule in our opinion. Toole v. State, 170 Ala. 41, 54 South. 195; Dowda v. State, 203 Ala. 441, 83 South. 324; State ex rel. City of Mobile v. Board of R. R. Com., 180 Ala. 489, 499, 61 South. 368; Reese v. State, 16 Ala. App. 430, 78 South. 460.The facts in this case, as shown in the transcript, were in sharp conflict, and therefore presented a jury question. The rulings of the court upon the testimony have been carefully examined, and no error of a prejudicial nature is shown in any of these rulings.
[4] When taken as a whole, the oral charge of the court is free from error, and the exceptions reserved thereto cannot be sustained. The measure of proof necessary to a eonvie*313 tion was clearly stated that, after a consideration of all the evidence in this case, the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it was their duty to so find. Hart v. State, ante, p. 249, 89 South. 828.Charge 1 was properly refused. There was conflict in the testimony and the defendant was not entitled to this (affirmative) charge. The one other refused charge, not numbered, was also properly refused as being in conflict with section 2, Acts 1919, p. 1086.
There being no error, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
<Sr=jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered-Digests and Indexes
Document Info
Docket Number: 14 Div. 679.
Citation Numbers: 92 So. 95, 18 Ala. App. 311, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 252
Judges: Bricken
Filed Date: 6/30/1921
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/2/2024