Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0500-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(79 South. 198)
    STATE v. BLACKWELL.
    (6 Div. 471.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    April 9, 1918.
    Rehearing Denied May 7, 1918.)
    1. Statutes <&wkey;64(6) — Partial Invalidity-Effect — Desertion.
    Elimination from Acts; 1915, p. 560, relative to protection of women and children from desertion and nonsupport, of the part of section 1, as to payment to probation officer by county, invalid because not within the title, held to leave an act complete in itself and enforceable, which will therefore be upheld.
    2. Statutes <&wkey;118(l) — Title—Desertion.
    Title' of act (Acts 1915, p. 560) relative to protection of women and children from desertion, declaring a misdemeanor, prescribing penalty, and providing for probation officers, held to embrace but one subject, sufficiently expressed.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; J. J. Curtis, Judge.
    Alvin Blackwell was charged with desertion of his wife, and from an order sustaining demurrer to the affidavit, the State appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    The defendant was arrested on a warrant based upon an affidavit charging him with desertion of his wife without providing her with means of support; she being at the time in necessitous or destitute circumstances. Upon the trial of the case in the circuit court the defendant demurred to the affidavit, raising the question that the act of 1915 (page 560) under which the prosecution arose was in violation of section 45 of the Constitution.
    F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. F. Finch, of Jasper, for the State. L. D. Gray, of Jasper, for appellee.
   SAMFORD, J.

A part of section one of this act has already been declared unconstitutional (Board of Revenue, etc., v. State, [Sup.] 76 South. 388), but it was expressly said in the majority opinion in that case that the remainder of the act was not affected by the decision. We are of the opinion, when that part of the act is eliminated, that it leaves an act complete in itself that can be enforced. Whenever that is a fact, the act will be upheld. State v. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 South. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23.

The title to the act is as follows:

“To protect women and children from desertion and nonsupport by husbands and parents; making it a misdemeanor for a husband to desert or neglect to provide for the support of his wife, or for a parent to desert or to neglect to provide for the support of Ms or her cMld, or children, under the age of sixteen years; prescribing the penalty therefor, and making provisions for the apprehension and punishment of persons convicted of nonsupport or desertion; and providing for the taking of recognizances; * * * also providing for the forfeiture and enforcement of said recognizances; and providing for the appointment of probation officers and prescribing their duties and powers; and making chiefs of police and sheriffs and other peace officers, probation officers, in certain contingencies, and designating the courts which shall have jurisdiction of such matters.” Page 560, Acts 1915.

This title embraces but o-ne subject, which is sufficiently expressed. Board of Revenue, etc., v. State ex rel. Campbell, 163 Ala. 441, 50 South. 972, and authorities there cited. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.