The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1855-02-07
n. sMIrH, oFFIclAL RErOkrER. /
SATURDAY, Jan. go, 1855.


l.- DR. esd.
SATURDAY, Jan. 90, 1855.
Present: Thurman, Chief Justice, aud
Kinney, Barley, Warden and Ken
non Judges.
Le5i Gibson VS.. the STATE. in Error
to the Probate Court Union county.
The plaintiffs in error were prosecuted
for violations of the 4th section of the act
OF May I. 1854, entitled, can Act to
provide against The evils resulting from
the sale Of intoxicating Liquors in the
State Of Ohio" which section provides:
That all places where intoxicating liquors
are sold in violation of this act, shall be
taken, held, and declared to bea common
nuisance, and all rooms, t~averns, eating
houses, bazaars, restaurants, groceries, col
fee houses, cellars or other places Of pub.
lie, resort, where intoxicating liquors are
sold in violation ofthis act shall be shut
up and abated as public nuisances, upon
the conviction of the keeper thereof, who
shall be punished as hereinafter provid-
ed.'' ..t.s g. |
Being convicted, they we're respective
", to pay fines and beimprisoned ;and or
ders made that the rooms by them kept
should be shut up until bond and security
should be given pursuant to the 9th Sec
lion of said act. TO reverse which sen
fences and orders these writs were bro't.
THURvAN, @. j., delivered the opinion
Of the Court. Red-
J.. That for aught that appears in the
journals of the Senate and House Of Rep
resentatiyes Of the General Assembly, the
act of May I, 1854, entitled, AN Act to
provide against the evils resulting from
the sale Of intoxicating liquors in the
State Of Ohio was con%stitutlcnally enac-
ted.
2. That the provisions Of the Consti-
tuition Art. 9, Sec. 1872 that, every
bill shall bo fully aud distinctly read on
ihree different days, unless in case of ur-
gencY, three Cour!hs of the House in
which it shall be pending shall dispense
with this rule does not require that ev-
cry amendment to a bill shall be read
three times. .
g.. Every reasonable inteniment is to
t be made in favor Of the proceedings Of the
Legislature. 1t is not to be presumed
| that the Assembly, or either House of it,
/, has violated the Constitution, When,
therefore, it appears by the journals, that
, a bill was amended BY striking out all af-
ter The enacti9g clause and inserting a
/, new bill, so called. it cannot be presum
: ed that the matter inserted was upon a
r different subject from that stricken out
q. especially when the matter with the title
). born By the bill b tore such amendment.
l This is the more obvious since the Consti
. tuition provides that, no bill shall con
. ,ain more than n subject which shall bt
: clearly expressed in its title" Art. 2
r Sec. i6 Nor does the fact that the in
b serted matter is called a new Bill prove
G that it was not an amendment.
e 4. No bill can become a law withou
receiving the humber Of votes required By
the Constitution, and If it was found b.
r an inspection Of the Legislative journals
. that what purports to be a law upon thu
Statute book was not passed by the re
q~uisite number Of votes, II might possibly
be the duty Of the Courts to treat it a
nudity. But it does not follow that an &C
v that was passed by a constitutional ma
t; jority is invalid, because, in its considera
j. ton, the Assembly did not strictly oh
y serve the mode of procedure prescribed
i the constitution. There are provisions il
e. that instrument that are directory in thei
ID character, the observance Of which by tn
Of Assembly is secured by their sense of du
ty and official oaths. and not by any su
Mt pervisory power Of the Courts.
$. 5, Neither the LIST, Cd. Sd, 4th or 81
n sections of the act under consideration
BE properly construed, is ~repugnant to tn
e. constitution. In saying this, we do nt
mean to affirm that the Legislature ha
e, the power wholly to prohibit the traffic
" Intoxicating liquors in this State. Will
y out deciding whether the assembly hi
ly any power over this subject in virtue
h, the general grant oflegislative power
=, Sec. | OF Art. 2. of the Con t~itution, y
49, hold that the enactment Of said sector
,rs of the law is unauthorized by the EXPIRE
re grant of power in Sec. l8 of Art. l6,
er- these words: No license to traffic in i
ng toxicating liquors shall be hereafter grar
he ted ia this State, but the General Asser
ay bly, may by law, provide against evils r
in sulting thesefrom.'
OF. 6. TAviolation Of either the Is, Cd
"a 81, sections of the act,subject the often,
his err to the penalties mentioned in the FIR
clause of Sec. 8. 1t is not necessary
ey order to incur these penalties, that
j three sections be violated. 80
his 7. liza sale violate all three section
the offender may be prosecuted under
did Their Of the other two sections.
md 8. But a conviction or acquittal, und
n the LIST, Cd, or Sd sections is no bar to
IL prosecution under the 4th. A
9. To convict for a violation Of the
inc section it is necessary to aver il the inf
,ct NATION, and prove on the trial, that
seller knew the buyer to be a I
nor; md to convict for a violation of
81 s~ec.ionit is necessary to aver a
lhe prove in like manner. that the ssller kn
. y, The buyer to be intoxicated. or in the h
sns it of getting intoxicated. (Blrney's ca
8 o. h. 937. followed and approved.
1C.. To convict for q violation OF
"nu 9TH section, 1t is necessary to aver ~
information, and prove on the trial, I
the place where the liquor was sold !
'ue La place of public resort. And the pr
must also show that it was a place VIII
liquors were habitually sold in violat
YES otthe act. A single sale does not m
2 the Mace a nuisance, or the seller q Ike
err, within the meaning of act. A Sc
Of sales makssh necessary y
has H.. No order to shut up or abate