M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1855-01-26
Liquor Case Decided.
Supreme Court OF Ohio.
IAMEs n. SMITH, OFFICIAL REPoarER.
SATURDAY. January. 20. 1855.

Ranney, Barley. Warden. and Kennon,
Judges. ,i, tfl
No. l49. frederick Miller v. the
State. Iu error TO the Probate Court OF
Clermont county.
No. ITO. Levin Gibson Y. The State.
In error to the Probate Court Of Union
county. f.i -.... a.faa". s'.
The plaintiffs In error were prosecut.
ed for violations on the 4th section Of
the act Of May /. 1854, entitled. IAN
act to provide against the evils resulting
from the sale Of Intoxicating Liquors in
the State of ohio;" which section PRO.
yides: "That all places where intoxicat.
ing liquors are sold in violation Of this
act, shall be taken, held, and declared
10 be common nuisances; and all ooms,
taveTns, eating -houses, bazaars, restaur'
ants, groceries, coffee. houses, cellars. or
other places OF public resort, where in'
toxicaIins liquors are sold i'll violation
of this act, shall be shut up and abatc d
as public nuisancss, upon the conviction
Of the keeper thereof, who shall be pun.
ished as hereinafter provided"
Being convicted, they were, respect
lively, sentenced TO pay fines and be i'm
prisoned, and orders made that the rooms
By them kept should be shut up until
bond aud security should be give pursu-
ant to the 9Th section of said act. To
reverse which sentences and orders these
writs were brought.
Thurman, G. j., delivered the opinion
Of the Court. Held
l. That, for aught that appasrs in the
journals of the Senate and House OF BE.
pre- SOL tativss Of the General Assembly,
the act Of May l, 1884, entitled. can
act to provide sgaiust the evils result
ing fIom the sale ofln,oIicating Liquors
in the State Of Ohio" was constitution.
ally enacted.
Q. That TIE provision Of the Consti.
tution tart. 2 sec. i6,) that Every bill
shall be fully and distinctly read on
three different days, unless, in case Of
urgency, three fourths of the House in
which il shall be pending shall dispense
with this rule" does not require that
every amendment 10 q bill shall be read
three times.
.. Every reasonable insendmOnt is to
be made in favor Of the proceedings Of
the Legislature. II is not 10 be pres.
umed that the Assembly, or either
House of il. has violated the COnstitu.
tion. When, therefore, il appears BY
the journals, that bill was amended b,
striking out all after the enscting clause
and inserting a "new BILL" so called, it
cannot be presumed that the matter in
serted was upon a different subject from
that stricken out; especially when the
ma tier inserted Is consistent wi tn he
title borns by the bill beford such amend
men,. This is the more obvious since
the Constitution provides that, "No bill
shall con tain more than one subject
which shall be clearly expressed in its
tide" (Ari. 2, sec. l6.) Nor does the
fact that the inserted matter is called a
new bill" prove that it was not an
amendment.
q. No bill can become law without
sscEiving the number Of votes required
BY the Constitution, and If j. was found
by an inspection Of the Legislative jour
nails, that what purporis TO be a law up
on the statute book was not passed by
the requisite number Of votes, it might,
possibly, be the duty of the Courts to
treat il as q nullity. But it does not fol-
low tha. an act that was passed By a
constitutional majority is invalid, be-
cause, in its consideration, the Assem-
bly, did not strictly observe the mode oil
procedure prescribed by the Constitu'
ton. There are provisions in be ins'ru'
meut that are directory in their character
the observance Of which by the Assem-
bly, is secured by their sense Of duty and
official oaths, and not by any supervise
Iry power Of the Courts.
5. Neither the lst, ID, 81, 4th, OF 9th
sections Of the act under considera tion,
properly construed, is repugnant to the
CONSTITUTION. In saying this, we dc
not mean to affirm that the Legislature
has the power to wholly prohibit th'
traffic in intoKicati liquors in ,hi
State. Without deciding whether tht
Assembly has any power over this sub
Iject in virtue OF the general grant o
Legislative power in sec. OF art. 2 Of ia,
Constitution, we hold that the nactmen
Of said sections of the law is authorized
by she express grant Of power in sec, II
of art, t6, in these words: "No licens'
to traffic in Intoxicating liquors shall
thereafter be granted in this State, buI
the General Assembly may, by law, pro
vide sgsinst evils resulting therelrom.
Il 6. A violation OF either of the lst o
lor 3 sections Of the act, subjects the OF
fender TO the penalties mentioned in tn
lfrst clause uf sec. s. 1t is not necessa
lry, in order 70 incur these penalties
lthat all three sections be violated.
q. Ifa sale violate all three sections
the offender may bs prosecuted unde
leither Of them; and his conviction, O
acquittsl, will bar a prosecution. 10
the same SALE. under either Of the othe
1.-Two sections. ...
8. But a conviction, or acquittal, ur
der the lst, 81 or Sd sections is no bs
to a prosecution under the 4Ih.
o. To convict for violation Of the 2
section, il is necessary to aver in the il
forms tion, and prove on the trial, ,ha
the seller knew the buyer to be mino
and to convict for violation of the 8
section it is necessary TO aver and prov,