Birmingham state herald., 1897-06-17
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
In the Case of Frank Brown vS
 The State.
OPINION BY JUDGE HEAD
No Merit In the Exception Reserved By the Appellant of the Admission of Evidence
 Touching Owners of the Property.

Frank Brown Vs. the State or Alapdnha' appeal from Jeffetson criminal court
 Head, J.-There is no mert. in the ex- ception reserved by ths appellant to the admission of the evidence touching the name of the owner of the property, the subiecs of the crime. The alleged owner-a body corporate--was orlglhaiy chartered by the name Of Iehhessee Coal and Railroad company" but after wards, and before the indictment in thls onss was found, the charter was amended by changing the name ao "Teq.nessee Coal Iron and Roilroad company. Thls latter is the name of the owner, as charged in the indictment. The ob1ec- tion to the evidence was th-t here was a variance between it and the indictment. Most clearly, the objection was mos we'll taken.
 An objection to the original charter, separat5 and apart from the amendment which was offered, in connection with It, cannot properly be considered.
 In pursuance of law. the appellant was sentenced, to perform hard labor for the county for twelve months, as punishment for the offense commit ted. In addition to this, he was sentenced to perform hard labor for the county for 2S1 days to pay the costs of the prosecution. This lat Ser sentence was in conformity to sec tion 4.504 of the code. which authorizes the imposition of such hard labor for costs, in cases of felony. for a period not exceeding eighteen months.
 The ueStion is now raised whether this provision of the code was al cred, and the authorized period of hard labor for costs reduced to a poirat below the period for which appellant was sentenced, by subsequent acts of the legislature, 10 which we are referred.
 The first of these acts was general re- vision of what is known as the convict af February IA, 1883. Acts 1S92-9S, p. 194. It's title Is, An act to create new convict system for the sJate of Alabama and to provide for The government, discipline and ma.ritenaace of all convicts in the state of Alabama" g. cticn 54 of this act contains. among hers, the following pro'ViSion: "Whenever any convict is sen fenced by the court, and required to do hard lar4bor for the county, an additional sentence, not ito exceed sdx months in any one case, for .he payment of the costs of his conviction, may be imposed" etc. Thus if this provision was enforceable, the maximum term of hard labor for costs was reduced to six mor,ths.
 At the session of 1S94-5 there was, by an act approved Feb 1S 1895, (Acts 1S94-5. D. Sf9), another revision of the convict system. The title of this act was, An act to regulate the management of state and county convicts." Section 9S intro- duced substantially the same provision as that copied above from the act of 1893, except that it fixed the maximum term of hard labor for costs at ten, instead of six months.
 The question is, whether these acts, in so far as they attempt to prescribe, by the provisions referred to, what sem tence the court shall impose, in refer- enee to costs, are not offensive to section 3, Art. of the constitution which or, dains that Each law shall contain but one subject which shall be clearly ex- pressed in it's title." etc.
 The principle declared in ex 'parte Gayles, 10S Ala, 514 leaves no room for discussion or doubt upon this question. The titles to these acts clearly indicate nothing more than purpose to provide for modes and means of executing the sentences imposed upon conyictS by the courts. They give no indication, what ever, of a purpose to go behind the sen tence and prescribe what sentence the court shall impose. The functions indi- cated by these titles are purely executive or miriste rial, taking eff ct after the min istarial sentences have been pronounced.
 The question is different from that which came under our consideration in White vs. Burgn, in MS. In that case the provisions of the first of said acts then under review, the constitutionality of which was upheld as shown by the opinion of Justice Mcclellan, had relation entirely to acts to be performed In rel ereflce to the government, discipline and maintenance of the convict, by min isterial officers or processes after he be- came a convict, within the sense of the act. by virtue of his conviction, in the court of trial and the imposition of the sentences which the law requires the court to impose as consequence of such conviction. Until these judicial require ments are performed, the person is not a convict within the meaning of the law providing what shall be done with, or in reference to, conviets, viz: the convict system. That system. necessarily, has relation alone to the carrying into execu- ton of the sentences of the court by which the person becomes convict and thereby subject to it's provisions. In or der to establish his status as convict, the court of trial is required by law after conviction by the jury Cor by the court where jury is dispensed With) to impose, by it's n tence, the punishment which the law denouncing the offense annexes to the crime; and further, if the sentence is to hard labor for the county, and the costs are not presently paid, or Judgment confessed therefor, to impose the further sentence of hard labor for limited term, for the payment of the costs of the con Wction--the term being regulated by the amount of the costs, and not to exceed specified maximum period. This last named sentence most clearly enters into and forms a part of the judicial disposi- ton of the prisoner, creating ana defln- ing him as one amcnable to the regula- tions provided by law for putting the sentences into execution. When sen tanee to hard labor is pronounced the court pronouncing it must go further and fjudicially ascertain that the costs have not been paid, when such is the case, and So declare upon it's records, and, dudgment therefor not being con- fesseJ) to pronounce the additional sen tance provided by law. What this sen tcnce shall be-whether 1t shall be lim- tied to six. ten or eighteen months-has mapfestly. no more natural or germane relation to a system of laws providing for the government discipline and maintenance" of convicts, than has the sentence which the law requires the court to pronounce upon the prisoner as absolute punishment for the crime.
 Tho additional hard labor imposcd for costs. a s we held in Caldwell vs State 55 Ala, 133 and Morgan vs. State 1T Ala, 3G, is precisely of the same nav fure and inspired by the same motive or purpose as the absolute punishment pre- scribed by law, tc-wit, the purpose cf punishment for crime. It is for this rea- sanIthat the constitutional inhibition of imprisonment for debt does not apply to the imposition of such additional hard