Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0513-01.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

(93 South. 381)
    STATE v. WILLIAMS.
    (8 Div. 852.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 16, 1922.)
    Statutes <®=>77 (I) — Act prohibiting stock in certain counties from running at large held unconstitutional, as a local law.
    Acts 1919, p. 194, prohibiting live stock from running at large in counties having a population between 30,900 and 30,975, held void,_ under Const. 1901, § 104, subd. 23, prohibiting local laws estáblishing stock districts. (.Response of Supreme Court to certified question.)
    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.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
    A. H. Carmichael and James Jackson, both of Tuscumbia, for appellee.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

The prosecution is grounded on an act of the Legislature approved August 9, 19Í9, 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 South. 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. -

C. R. BRICKEN, P. J.

WM. H. SAMFORD, J.

HENRY P. MERRITT, J.

Response to Certified Question.

SOMERVILLE, J. 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. Lauder-dale. Reynolds v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 South. 465. Being a local act, pure and simple, it is manifestly prohibited by subdivision 23 of section 104 of the Constitution, which forbids the creation of stock law districts by special or local laws, and must therefore be pronounced null and void.

Let this conclusion be duly certified to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

SAMFORD, J. In accordance with the response to the foregoing inquiry, which is made a part of this opinion, the judgment in this ease is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      other oases see same tonic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes