The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-08-25
M PETITION DEFECTIVE.
ofS Suit Dismissed and He Gives
Notice Of An Appeal.

Nc. Not Glass Legislation-Cole'
4 p.+ition, However, Was Fatally De-
4 e..+ive. in that Service Was Not
properly Made-He viii Try. His
Trck With the Supreme Court.
nudge NIacDonell decided yesterday that
n. Giles petition against the Savannah,
ror5a and Western Railway for s., 900
damages, was fatally defective and that
! T. should be dismissed, but his decision
,r,boIds the constitutionality of the act
nn5er which it was brought aud his ac-
ton is based upon other grounds.
The trials with which the petitioner
has had to contend have been numerous.
His first petition was brought up some
months ago and service not having been
rroperlv made it was thrown out of court.
A new petition was filed at the next
term of court and came up for argument
An q demurrer filed by Mr. w. S. CHS
hahn, of Erwin, duBignon 81 Chisholm,
asking that the petition be dismissed on
fine ground of the mconstitutionality of
tbe law under which it was brought, Mr..
Cole having been discharged as an en-
plove of the Savannah, Florida and West
ern railway without sufficient reasons, as
he thought, and under the law recently
psssed by the legislature he was entitled
10 sue for the sum of s., 900.
Judge Macdonell decided at
that time that the law
was not unconstitutional and Coles
petition remained in court on the condi-
lion that he would properly amend it and
putt in proper form. This Cole did, and
by request of the court, some of the ques-
tons upon which the court had ruled,
which had been raised by the defendant,
were reargued on the second demurrer to
the petition which was filed after the
petition had been amended.
IT Is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In his decision rendered yesterday,
Judge MacDonell says the court still
thinks that the conclusions reached in
the former decision to the effectShat the
constitutional clause with reference to
excessive fines and excessive bail has
reference to fines imposed for criminal
ofenses, and not to penalties, for the
wrongful breach of duty prescribed by a
statute to be recovered in a civil action /;
and also that the penalty in the act is not
different matter from what is expressed
in the title, are correct.
Again" says the decision 'it has been
suggested that the act is invalid because
the title is as follows: AN act to require
certain corporations to give to their dis
charged employees or agents the causes
Of their removal or discharge when dis
charged or removed while the body of the
act requires any railroad company, tele-
graph company, express company or
electric street railroad company, etc, J."
without limiting the requirement to such
as are corporations If there are, indeed,
any such companies in this state that are
unincorporated the act would be unconsti-
tutiOnal pro tanto as to them, but as to all
that are corporations the act would
remain valid and good provided it did not
In other respects conflict with the consti-
tuition because undoubtedly this was the
real legislative intention
NOT CLASS LEGISLATION.
''The act of Oct. 81, 1891; acts of 1S9O-9I ,
volume |, page lSS, referred to provides
that hereafter when any railroad COM
pany telegraph company. express COM
pany, or electric street railroad company
shall discharge or remove any agent or
emplOye, it shall be the duty of such com
pany, when requested in writing, etc, to
give a specific statement in writing of
the reasons which caused such discharge.
Electric street railroad companies being
expressly named. All other street rail
roads as e. G. Those operated by horse
power or steam are excluded from the OPP
Grafton of the law. Nor are they in
cluded in the description ANY railroad
company first mentioned.
The rule of construction is that when
two words or expressions are coupled to-
UptOpT a ct Of f.al,
lcaIly includes another, the more general
term IS used in a meaning excluding the
specific one Endlich on Interp. of Stat
utes, 1896. The special mention of one
lhlng indicates that it was not intended
10 be covered by a general provision which
would otherwise include it. Ibid, 1899.
II was claimed III argument that this act
was class legislation and in violation of
the paragraph of the constitution, S5027 of
the code. Laws of a general nature shall
nave uniform operation Throughout the
state, and no special law shall be enacted
IN any case for which provision has been
made by an existing general law. No gen
erai law affecting private rights shall ne
varied IN any particular case by special
legislation, except with the free consent
~ writing of all persons to be affected
thereby, ETC.
II Is \ GENERAI LAW.
us the law under consideration of a
general nature or is it special law2 In
MNdlnls vs. Jones, 81 Ca, sos, Bleckley,
- d. held that the generality spoken of
III Ine constitutional clause is territorial
tglefallty, and that this is indicated by
oae words throughout the state One
anu The same law for the whole state
i nluSt De general law, and a general law,
CT I,
olit' A decisive proof that such laws
are not local or special, within the mean
.Is Oh the constitution of 1877, is that, by
..iuovuer provision of the same constitu-
tlOu every local or special bill has
!" De advertised beforehand in the
to'dllIy where the matter or thing
NJ oe affected is situated code S5057
h. -eIe could be no reason for advertising
~ oue locality rather than another, the
am 'g5HuQn to apply for law which affects
% %ii lOScalltles and all of them alike. The
I vlI ior such law would have to be ad-
w., w, IISeo an over the state. We can say
t e-on certainty that the law does not con
W., W pldJe or provide for giving any pre-
MUS NUS notice as preliminary to the enact
LII ,'I Oh a law of this character
b,,i,n Brown VS.. State, 70 Ga 40, Hall, j.,
gu Gu mat the law for the collection of
speCiinc taxes of liquor dealers was not
T ,l', law, for the reason that the law
b rr9 confined to no one county or locality,
nau operation in every county and
y,b any within the limits of the state
.J MY SSplrltuOus or malt liquors are sold"
nl.iLn.!!ddKe manner the act under which
Ia,u,.. IN S petition is brought is a general
in o ", Ior the reason that it has operation
very county or locality in the state
cb "Cre the companies named may dis
low %' <. an employee and where he may fol-