The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-09-12
JUDGE WOODS
DECISION,
He SuSidinS the Demurrer to the In
dictment of Terry and JamiSOn.
a MOTION FOR THE DISCHARGE
OF THE ACCUSED WAS MADE
By THEIR ATTORNEYS, GUT WAS
RESISTED BY THIS
ATTORNEY LYLE AND THE
COURT GRANTED A POSTPONE.
MENT UNTIL MONDAY.

Judge Jno. w. Woods, Of the hustings
court, rendered his decision Yesterday
morning on the demurrer to the indict
ment in the case of the comm )nwenith
~. ;. w. Jamison and =. l.. Terry as
follows:
After giving to the demurrer entered
in this prosecution that serious consider
alton which the gravity Of the case de
mands: after having listened attentively
to exhaustive arguments both for and
against it, and consulting all the author
tiles at my. disposal, calculated to throw
light upon the question, / am firmly con-
vinccd the demurrer should he sustained.
The demurrer is based up three grounds,
two of which are of highest Importance
and go TO the constitutionality of the
statute upon which the Indictment rests.
The demurrer is made to the Indictment
and the statute attacked % because the
Legislature i'll passing the act in question
transcribed it's powers by making per-
fectly innocent at crime, thereby
abri"ging the liberty or the citizen
In other words, 1t is claimed by conn
sci for the demurrer that potwithstand-
ing the accused had acquainted the de-
position with the insolvent condition of
the hank, and the deposition, still willing
to take the lisk. insisted on making the
deposit, which the accused then received,
that its reception even under such cir.
cumstances was in violation of the pro-
visions Of the statute, and there fore q fel-
ony. In this view the attorney for the
commonwealth concurred.
Assuming this tc be the correct conclu.
sion to he drawn from the statute. then
it would seem that the legislature had
gone too far when it undertook to say it
was crime for an officer of an inso!vent
bank to receive money Notwithstanding
1t may have been from one who was fully
| apprsed as to the banks insolvent con-
dition.
The Legislature, no doubt, simply
meant to punish the receiving of deposits
by insolven. bankers, ETC., where the real
condition of tie bank was unknown to
the party making the deposit. But
whether this position be correct or not,
and rs to its correctness have some
doubt, it seems to me there is scarcely
room for two opinions on the second point
iaiseh, namely:
That the act is unconstitutional be-
cause i'll violation of an express provision
| OF the constitution which declares Art.
D. Sec. l5) that "no law shall embrace
more than one object, which shall be cX-
pressed in it's title"
| 1t Is lair to assume that the object of
the legislature, which sought to give life
! 10 the act In question, had the pernicious
Practice at which the statute was leveled,
was the receiving deposits by insolvent
BANKERS and banks, or officers thereof,
without first acquainting the depositnr
with the banks insolvency and to pre-
vent the same. Tested by the constitu-
tional requirement. referred to let us see
how we'll it succeeded.
This requirement. is mandatory and
may be said to require of every law to
which legislative sanction gives life to
two things.
l. 1t must have one object.
:. That object shall be expressed in it's
title.
1t is with this latter clause alone we
have to deal.
AS have alrea iy said, the object of
the net was to..suppress, to prevent orpro-
hbit the receiving of DEPOSITS by insol-
vent bankers, etc. Or to state it differ.
emily. the object was to make it punish
able for officers uf insolvent banks, etc,
to receive deposits, etc.
Here We have the object of the act. Is
the object expressed in it's title? think
not.
The title reads as follows:
Gan act relating to the receiving of de
| posts 10y insolvent bar kers, b, okers or ar
| officer of bunk"
1t seems TO me it may be stated with
boldness that no man can close his ewes
to the BODY of the act and have any def
continued on fourth page