The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-07-25
LORD COLE Is JUBILANT.
Judge NaCDOncll 0VeTTuIeS the De-
muITer TO His Petition.

without Truthful Reasons VIII Go
Before Jury-The Special Demur-
rer Sustained, However, and he
Must Amend His Petition-He Prides
Himself in Having Sustained the
Georgia Legislature.
Judge A. H. MacDoneu handed down
his decision yesterday in the case of r. II.
Cole VS.. the Savannah, Florida and West
eru Railway Company, in which he de-
clares constitutional the act under which
Coles suit was brought
Cole objected to the reasons given him
by the officials of the Savannah, Florida
& Western railroad for his discharge on
the ground that they were not truthful,
and he filed suit under the Georgia laws
of 1891, which require truthful reasons
to be given to discharged employe UNI
der penalty of 5000 To this bill Erwin,
duBignon & Chisholm, counsel for the
defendant, filed general demurrer, and
it was on this demurrer that
Judge MacDonell rendered his de-
cision sustaining the constitutionality of
the act which had been questioned. The
decision was read in open court yesterday
afternoon at 4 O'Clock.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.
In his written opinion Judge MacDoneI
| briefly summarized the argument as fol-
| lows:
On the motion to dismiss it was CON
tended that the act of Oct. II, 1Sgl-acts
lS90-9l, p. 1888, upon which the plaintiffs
right of action rests, was uncOnstitu-
tional. The title of the act is as follows:
An act to require certain corporations
70 rriv fp f6aiv al
agent the causes of their removal or dis
charge. when discharged or removed
The first section of the act provides
that it shall be the duty of the company
when requested in writing by the dis
charged employees, to give a specific state
ment in writing of the reason of the dis
chagre, etc.
The second section provides the manner
in which, and the persons upon whom the
request shall be served. The third sec
| ton provides the time and manner in
which the answering of the statement
shall be given and also if such company
shall fail or refuse TO give the informa-
ton as herein provided for, or shall give
false statement thereof, it shall be liable
TO such discharged agent or employee in
the sum of s., 1000 1t is contended that
this latter clause is obnoxious to the con-
stltution as containing matter different
from what is expressed in the title Of the
act.
OBJECT OF THE LAW.
In Howell VS.. State, II Ca, 227, it was
| held that the general object of the law is
all that need be indicated by the title.
| Togo further and require every end and
means necessary or convenient for the &C
complishment of this general object to be
enumerated in the title would go beyond
the purpose of the authors of this clause.
: . i -. j..
ever went further than to hold that it
would be sufficient eff the title was de-
scriptive generally of the purpose of the
| act and that it was, not necessary that
it should particularize the
| several provisions contained in
the body of the act" It is not required
that'the title should contain a synopsis of
the law, but that the act should contain
no matter variant from the title; 9th Ga,
| p. ~.
THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
In the act under consideration the use
! of the words, ito require" in the
! caption sufficiently indicates, we think,
that the legislature intended to make the
| observance of the duty compulsory upon
| the corporations named. If the act failed
! to provide means to compel its observance
| it would lack the sanction necessary to
make obedience a positive requirement; it
]
atty then is only a means for the accom-
! plishment of the general purpose ex-
! pressed in the title. To give false reasons
| for the discharge would be in effect the
same as to give no reasons at all. The OBJ
iect of the law is to give discharged en-
ployes means of ascertaing the true
reasons of their discharge and is in futher-
ance of the law to prevent blacklisting
passed at the same session of the legisla-
ture- The penalty, therefore, rightly
! covers also giving a false statement of the
! reasons of the discharge.
THE JUDGES OPINION.
We are of the opinion that the law is not
unconstitutional upon the ground urged
Neither do we think it is unconstitutional
| upon the other ground urged, viz: That
the penalty is an excessive fine as contem-
plated in the constitutional prohibition
The clause Excessive bail shall not be
required nor excessive fines imposed has
reference to fines in criminal cases and
not to penalties for the wrongful breach
of duty prescribed by a statute to be re
| covered in Il civil action by the person az
| grieved. There is nothing in the consti-
tuition which prohibits the legislature
from prescribing a rule for the measure
| of damages. See Clary VS. G. II. r., 81
Ga, $40. This is nothing more than "a
rule for the measure of damages. AS to
its being excessive that was a question
for the wisdom of a Georgia legislature to
| determine and not for the courts.
MUST AMEND HIS PLEADING.
Judge MacDonell, however, sustained
the special demurrer made by Mr. CHS
holm. The plaintiffs petition, he said
was defective in that it did not appear
! that the request for the reasons for the
| discharge were served upon either of the
officers of the defendant company, upon
whom such service could be made accord
ing TO the act.
1t was also defective, he stated, in that
Cole aid not set forth his written request
for the reasons of his discharge, nor the
alleged answer. thereto, which he claimed
was false.
Judge MaCDonell has evidently taken
into consideration the fact that Cole was
not represented by an attorney, but that
he was representing himself He has
given the case a great deal of attention
and certainly gave it a thorough study
as his decision shows.
Considering the fact that Cole is not
| represented otherwise than by himself
Judge MacDonell suggested an amend
ment of his petition, as it was amendable
but said that if the proper amendments
were not supplied the case would be
thrown out of court.
LORD COLE JUBILANT.
Cole was in court when the decision
was read. The judges language