Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-10-15

ing them the courts have kept In view
the evils intended to be remedied. and
have uniformly held that the provision
as TO the one subject does not apply
where two matters are Incorporated in
the act which are germane to each 9TH
err and parts in tse same general sub
feet matter
Let us apply this rule TO the act In
question. Its object IL to suppress con-
tests for physical supremacy, whether
between man and man or man and
beast. by prohibiting such contests,
whether entered into for u prize or
wager or as public exhibition. The
subject matter OF the act Is such physi-
cal contests, and II IL but one subject
within the meaning and intent OF the
constitution. The fact that "a pugll-
istic encounter between man and
man" and fight between man and
"A bull or any other animal are speci-
fed. makes the object OF the law. new
ertheless. one In legal contemplation,
and the subject matter single. NJ the
legislature, Instead OF entering Into
specifications. had defined the offense
In general terms, and had particular
ICED neither fights between men nor
fights between man and beasts, II
seems to us there could have been no
serious question as to the validity OF
the law. and yet the effect az the pres
VIZ Az - HitEAaFAN AAAf HhNlAfs A4fA Us
suppose an act were passed making It
a felony to steal ANY domestic ami
NAL" without specifying any animal
In particular. could It be doubted that
such an act contained but one subject2
Yet an act which declared that any
person who should steal any horse or
COW should be punished by confinement
in the penltentiary. would be less COM
prehenslve. and could not, therefore.
be void as embracing more than one
subject A contrary construction
would render legislation practically In
terminable. and would convert a wise
provision OF the constitution into u
serious hindrance upon the law making
power.
For the reasons given we are clearly
Of the opinion that the act is valid.
The writs OF m1ndamus prayed for In
these cases must. therefore, be refused.
II there was any law In force at the
time the petitions in these cases were
He'd, which makes 1t the duty of the
comptroller to issue occupation blanks
for prize fights, 1t Is repealed, and
the officer cannot be commanded to do
that which 1t is not now his duty to
do.
But It Is insisted that II that part OF
article 50ig Of the new revised civil
statutes relating to. the "fghts between
man and man" IS valid and was not re-
penal code which prohibits prize fights,
the petitioners were entitled to their
remedy at the time the suits were lusti-
tutcd, and that. therefore, they should,
In any event, recover their costs But
IN this proposition we do not concur.
These are suits at law. and In such
cases the statute ls peremptory.
It provides that the successful party
shall recover OF his adversary all the
costs expended or incurred therein ex-
cept when it Is or may be otherwise
provided by law" REV stat. Of 1879.
Art l49l) We know Of no laN that
affects this provision as applied TO
cases ~ this character. II II were other
wise, In view OF the labor devolved up
on the court, We should not be Inclined
10 enter upon the work OF determining
the Intricate questions originally In
volved in the suits for the purpose of
determining a mere issue OF costs.
Babinson vs. state. 81 Tex. 562: La
Coste vs.. Duney. ~ Tex. 769; Gordon
VS.. state, a. Tex 20sl
The writs OF mandamus prayed for
are refused. and each OF the petitioners
viii pay the costs Incurred in his suit.