, 1892-01-11


OF the Jndge of the Lower Court
Was i'm Excess OF HIS Juris die
ton.
Concluded from Saturdays edition.l
The case Of State ys. Bowers. IA Ind. 1876,
is in my opinion clearly in point as sus-
tanning the legislation in question. The
court in that case sustained the title Of the
act, which was ''To amend the first section
of all act entitled 1An act concerning Ii
censes to vend foreign merchandise, to ex-
hlblt any caravan. menagerie, circus, rope
and wire dancing, puppet show and leger-
demaln 4 and for the encourage
ment Of agriculture and Concerning the
licensing OF stock and exchange brokers, y
but held that it was not comprehensive
enough to embrace the term concerts =
and in 50 doing only applied a well estab-
lished doctrine as to the construction of
statutes.
The next case referred to by the learned
judge, that Of People VS.. the Judge of the
Superior Court of Grand Rapids. SO Mich.
195, could not have been examined, or it
would never have been cited as sustaining
the doctrine contended for. 1t is true there
is something contained therein by Way of
lecture and ADVICE to the legislature as to
the desirability of more definite titles to
their acts, but the particular title under
ACOHSlueIdUlOI, WHICH WAS more ODJecClOn-
able and uncertain than the one in the case
at bar was sustained by the court.
The other case cited in this connection is
that OF Leonard VS.. January, Sc Cal. 8. and
is too unsatisfactory to be worthy of cita-
tion upon any point. The court in its
opinion simply gives the title of the act
under consideration, which was in sub
stance: To amend certain sections of an
act to establish system of county govern
ments, add certain sections thereto,
and repeal certain sections thereof and
saws that it is void as in conflict
With the constitution Of the state with
out giving one word as to the
reasons for such decision; and from the
title it will be seen that it could have been
held in violation Of said constitutional
provision as we'll, if not better, upon other
grounds than the one in controversy here
lshallnot attemptO to reviewall the cases.
The number is very great. | have, how
ever, been unable to find more than one or
two cases which fully support the doctrine
of Harland VS.. the Territory, and even
these could probably be explained upon
other grounds than that the court had CON
strued such provision as the one in ques-
ton SO narrowly as to inyalidate titles like
the one at bar.
A few cases bearing directly upon the
question, and sustaining the validity Of
such titles will be given. In the case Of
held that any section of the penal laws of
the said state could be amended under
title simply referring to said section of the
penal code, (by its number) without any
addition thereto.
In the case Of the State VS.. Garret, 90 La.
Annual 637, the court holds a title good
which only refers to certain sections of the
Revised Statutes Of 1870 by designating
their numbers.
In the case of State VS.. Bankers and
and Merchants Mutual Benefit Associa-
alton, % Kansas 499, it was held that an
act to amend Sections 2, 4, II, Al and SO of
former act without further reference
thereto was good as to any amendment to
such sections, but that it was not broad
enough to cover in the same act an amend
ment to section rs of the same law not at
all referred to in the title.
In addition to the cases above mentioned
! cite as bearing generally upon the propo-
sition, and as tending more or less strong
ly to sustain the validity of titles like the
State Line & uniata r. r. Co.'s Appeal,
II Pa. 429.
State VS.. Gut, 13 Minn. 34.
Tuttle VS.. Strout, Mimi. 465.
Norman vs.. Curry, n Arkansas AL.
The case last cited upon superficial ex
animation would seem to be against the
proposition for which we are cOntendlng,
but when carefully examined | think it
sustains our views, and holds that the title
may be ais comprehensive as the legislature
sees fit to make it, but that when they
have selected a title, however restricted,
only those things fairly contained thereun-
der can be properly embodied in the stat
ute.
The title to the act in question is good
under our Constitution, and Sec. 100 as it
now stands authorizes a court at any time
tor sufficient reason to vacate Judgment.
With this view of the law it does not ap-
pear from the petition that the court has
proceeded without jurisdiction, and the
writ prayed for must be denied.
HoYT, Judge.
We concur: Anders, 6. J.; Stiles, J.;
Scott, j.; Dunbar, J.
rTETEOSOLoGHCAL REPORT.