The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-01-13
COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

dered'
The State of Indiana VS.. Jackson Young.
From the Shelby circuit court. Wor-
den. j.
This was prosecution against the appel
lee, originating before justice of the peace,
for being found in a state of intoxication, in
violation of the ninth section of the act to
regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors. etc,
approved February q, 1873. Acts 1870, P.
I5i) on appeal of the cause to the circuit
court, the affidavit was quaShed ana the
state excepted. The question presented re-
lates alone 10 the validity OF the statute
above mentioned. 1t provides that ut shall
he unlawful for any serson 10 get lntoNlcat-
ed person found in state OF ihtoxlca-
ton shall uDOn conviction thereof, be lined
in the sum of s5,r etc. The title of the
act is as follows: "An act to regu-
late the sale of intoxicating liquors,
to provide against evils resulting
from any sale thereof to furnish remedies
for damages suffered by any person in eonse-
duence of such sale, prescribing penalties, to
repeal all laws contravening the provisions
OF this act, and declaring an emergency"
Section - Of article OF the consti-
tuition is as follows: "Every act shall EN-
brace but one subject, and matters properly
connected Herewith which subject shall be
expressed in the title. But if any subject
shall be embraced in an act, Which shall not
be expressed in the title. such act snail De
void only as TO so much thereon as shall not
-
arises whether the matter embraced in the
section Of the statute quoted is expressed in
the title of the act, or is properly connected
with the subject expressed. This leads to
the inquiry, what is the subject expressed in
the title? It is quite clear that the
subject - the sale of intoxicating
liquors IF the act bore more general
title, Indicating that the subject was intoxi-
eating liquors in the abstract, such as
"An act concerning Intoxicating liquors.
no reason is perceived why legislation in
hibting the excessive use of them, might
not he within the title. III il could be de-
duced from what is set forth III the title that
the subject OF the act was intoxicating
liauOrs. the case would be much like those
OF Bright VS.. Mccullough. u Ind, 223, and
Shoemaker VS.. Smith, 81 Ind, H.
THE SALE OF LIQUOR.
But it Is impossible TO deduce from the
title the general subject of intoxicating
liquors. The entire title points to the sale
of intoxicating liquors, and nothing else, as
the subject of the act. 1t is clear, therefore,
that the Incorporate use OF such liquors is
a matter not expressed in the title.
DETENTION TO DRUNKENNESS.
On the point now under consideration we
have no doubt. Under title which indi-
Gates legislation only on the subject of the
safe u - a. PAO-
vision in violation of their consumption,
making il penal ofiense to be found in
state OF intoxication. 1t will be observed
that under the enactment no sale of liquors.
either i'm accordance with, or in cOntraven.
tiOn of, the other provisions of the act, con-
stitutes any ingredien mt or condition of the
Offense The manufactures or other person,
who is found intoxicated upon liquor which
has never been made the subject of sale, is
guilty of an infraction of the law equally
with him who is found intoxicated upon
liquor which mas been made the
subject of sale under the law. In
short, under title prOfessedly on the
subject of the sale of Intoxicating liquors
merely. the legislature have attempted, with
out reference to any sale, to make simple
drunkenness a crime. Admitting that in
toxication is so connected with the sale Of
intoxicating liquor, that under title TO
provide against evils resulting from any
sale of such liquor, drunkenness might be
declared to be a crime, il does not follow
that the section under consideration is prop
erly connected with the subject expressed in
the title of this act. The evil provided
against by the section Is intoXication gener-
ally, without regard to the manner of ac-
During the liquor by which it is produced,
whilst the title includes only such as result
from sales. The title does not include or
indicate any legislation not connected with
the sale or disposition of Intoxicating liquor.
No enactment, therefore, under the title, de-
claring intoxication to be crime, can be
valid except upon the theory that il results
from sale of such liquor, which must APP
pear in the enactment. 1t seems to US, there
fore that the matter of the section Is
not only not properly connected with
the subject expressed in the title. but IS en-
tirely foreign to it.
CASES IN POINT.
The case that comes nearest to the sup
port of the section under consideration is
that of the state VS.. Adamson; II Ind. BOG,
where it was held that uuder the title. Gan
act to regulate and license the sale of
spirituous, ETC., liquors." etc, provision
Furnishing the giving away, ETC., was pro-
perly connected with the subject expressed
i'm the title. There it was made an Offense
to sell, barter or give away any intoxicating
liquor to a minor. Although the word ''sale"
only was mentioned in the title, IL was held
that giving away was properly connected
with the subject expressed. The court say
when we consider the object for which
such a law was passed, viz: to prevent
abuses that might flow from the unrestrain-
ed disposal of liquors in these respects, it
would seem that the giving away under
circumstances which might produce the
same evil results as the selling, would be a
matter properly regulated IN connection
with the selling. Indeed, il may be regard
ed as necessary incident to a statute regu-
lating the sale to secure its efficient opera
ton. 1t is necessary precautionary pro-
vision 10 prevent evasion of the prohibition
to SELL" 1t would seem from the observa-
ton of the court that the object of the law
was Ito prevent the abuses which might
How from the unrestrained disposal of
liquors." that the word "sale" as used in
the title, might have been regarded as used
in a sense broad enough to cover a disposal
of liquor by way of barter or Gift. But,
kox this ma Ia nn6Qr the title tn thar
act. il was legitimate to frame law TO pun
ish selling to minors. The giving of liquor
to minors, it was thought, had a proper con-
sneetion with the subject of selling. Both
the sale and the gift involve the idea of a
disposal of the liquor. They both involve
the idea of furnishing ii To tho minor, and
yeetiag the title in him. In the one case
thlr-c H. a consolidation for the transfar- In