Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1855-02-02

BILL" so called, II cannot be presumed
that the matter inserted was upon q
different subject from that stricken out
especially when the matter inserted ],
consistent with the title borne by the
bill before such amendment. This is
the more obvious since the Constitution
provides that, "No bill shall contain
more than one subject, which shall be
clearly expressed in its title" (Art. 2,
Sec. i6.) Nor does the fact that the
inserted matter is called q new bill'
prove that il was not an amendment
4. No bill can become a law with
out receiving the number Of votes re.
quired by the Constitution, and If il
was found. by an inspection Of the
Legislative journals, that what pur'
ports to be a law upon the Statute
Book was not passed by the requisite
number Of votes, il might. possibly,
be the duty OF the Courts to treat il
as a nullity. But it does not follow
that an act that was passed by con.
stitutional majority is invalid, because.
in its consideration, the Assembly did
not strictly observe the mode OF pro-
cedure prescribed by the Constitution
There are provisions in that instru-
ment that are directory in their char
acter, the observance of which by the
Assembly is secured by their sense Of
duty and official oaths, and not by any
supervisory power of the courts.
8. Neither the lst, Cd, Sd, 4th or
9Th sections of the act under consider.
alton, properly construed, is repugnant
to the Constitution. In saying this,
we do not mean to affirm that the leg
islature has the power to wholly pro-
hibit traffic in intoxicating liquors in
this State. Without deciding wheth-
er the Assembly has any power over
this subject, in virtue Of the general
grant of legislative power in Sec. of
Art. 2, of the Constitution, we hold
that the enactment of said sections of
the law is authorized by the express
grant of power in Sec. Is Of Art. l6,
in these words: "No license to traffic
in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter
be granted in this State, but the Gen.
eral Assembly may, by law, provide
against evils resulting therefrom."
6. A violation of either of the lst,
I'd or Sd, sections of the act, subjects
the offender to the panalties mentioned
in the first clause of Sec. 8. 1t is not
necessary, in order to meur the penal
lies, that all three sections be violated.
z. If sale violate all three Sec
lions, the offender may be prosecuted
under either Of them; and his convic-
lion, or acquittal, will bar prosecu-
ion, for the same sale, under either of
he other two sections.
8. But conviction, or acquittal,
Inder the 1st, Cd or Sd sections is no
par to a prosecution under the 4th.
9. To convict for a violation of the
second section, it is necessary to aver
n the information, and prove on the
rial, that the sellers knew the buyer to
De minor; and to convict for viola
ion of the Sd section it is necessary to
lyer and prove, in like manner, that
he seller knew the buyer to be intoxi-
;ated, or, in the habit Of getting intox-
Gated. (Birney's case, 8 o. r. 237,
ollowed and approved.
10. To convict for violation of
he 4th section, it is necessary to aver
n the information, and prove on the
rial, that the place, where the liquor
vas sold, was place of public resort.
And the proof must also show that it
vas a place where liquors were habit
tally sold in violation of the act. A
ingle sale does not make the place a
Nuisance, or the seller a "keeper,"
within the meaning of the act. A SER
es of sales is necessary.
IL. No order to shut up, or abate
he place, can rightfully be made, un-
ess the nuisance continues to exist at
he time such order is made. Unless.
therefore,, the Court is satisfied that,
It the time of making the order, the
lace is kept for the sale of liquors in
'iolation of the act, no order should
We made. For lis the unlawful busi-
less, land not the place per Sc, that
reates the nuisance; and, hence, where
he business has ceased. there is no nu-
sance to abate. No mans property
an be forfeited as punishment for
rhine. the Constitution providing. that
10 conviction shall work a forfeiture
If estate. Art. /, Sec. IL. Hence
here is no power to deprive man of
he use of his property, unless it be
necessary in order to abate an existing
nuisance.
12. The order is not to be direct
ID to any officer. 1t is an order to
he person convicted, obedience to
which may be enforced, if the nuis-
snce be continued, by attachment for
contempt of court. The order being
made, if the convict cease to keep a
house of public resort, of the charac-
er named, or referred to in the 4th
section, he need give no bond, and
having so ceased, no attachment can
be issued against him. But
( he desire to continue keeping such
house Of public resort, he must, in or
Ter to avoid an attachment, give bond.
He has his election, to quit keeping
house Of public resort, or to give bond
md keep 1t without violating the law.
13. The following information is
sufficient in law:
THE STATE OF Ono, CLERMoNr
COUNTY, SIS. Probate Court, May term,
IN The year of our. Lord one thousand
eight hundred and fifty-four: John
Johnson, Prosecuting Attorney of the
State of Ohio. for the said county of