The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-09-12
JUDGE WOODS DECISION.
ccptinu, d from first psee

mite idea of it's contents by simply read
ing and re-reading it's title. Certain it is
the reader would never learn from its
title that the act meant to prevent or
punish the receiving of deposits. He
would gather frcm the title that the act
had something to do with receiving bank
deposits by insolvent bankers..aud brokers
and by any officer of any bank.
Whereas from perusal of the at itself
he would learn that punishment was
attached to the reception of n deposit by
s'any banker, broker or officer of any
trust or savings institution or of any
State bank or employe of any private
banker" with knowledge of the bank, saw
ings institution or bankers insolvency.
1t will he observed that no reference is
made in the title tc employees of private
BANKERS nor to officers of savings institu~
tions, while in the body OF the act both
are punishable.
mention this to show either the care
less manner or hurry in which the act
was passed, as this objection alone would
not make it unconstitutional, although
it is perfectly clear under the decisions
of our court OF appeals that neither of
these two classes could be punished
When it is remembered that one of the
main objects of the provision of the con-
stitution is to acquaint both legislators
and the people with the general scope of
the act and thereby prevent vicious leg
islaton, it becomes all the more apparent
that the title to the 'sact in question by
no means measures up to the constitn-
tional requirement and the act must fall
and with it fails the Indictment
1t was streuously insisted by the com.
monwealth's attorney that parties should
be put to trial upon the merits of the
prose cution and leave the supreme court
to pass upon the constitutonal;Jy of the
act.
Such Il course would have been more in
keeping with my desire, but the law
makes it the duty of every Judge who sits
upon the bench, from the humblest JUS
tice of the peace to the chief justice of the
supreme court OF the United States,
when firmly convinced of the constitu
tionality of n law to so declare it.
This course l have pursued regardless
of the effect of my decision.
The form of the indictment was also
objected to, but it becomes unnecessary
to pass upon that question. BY reference
to the reports of the decisions of the
highest courts Of other States having a
similar constitutional provision to that
of ours, as well as to the decisions of our
own court of appeals, it will he seen that
the courts have not hesitated, when occa-
sion demanded, to overturn legislation
where the title failed to set forth the Oh
ject of the act.
AS has been we'll said by the supreme
court of Georgia and quoted with ap.
prevail by our own court of appesls (S4
Va, S31):
eff the courts would refuse to execute
a law suspending the writ of habeas cor
pus when the public safety did not re-
quire it, % law eiolatory of the freedom of
the press, or trial by jury, neither would
they enforce statute which contained
matter different from what was expressed
in the title thereof"
Our own court in commenting on this
provision has said iyhc object is to shave
the title OF every act clearly express the
object of the enact ment," and the title o
the act in question falls far short OF this
judicial construction of constitutional
requirement.
: The judgment Of the court, therefore, is
to sustain the demurrer. dismiss the in-
dictment and discharge the accused.
JOEN w. WOODS.
Note-From some Of the Virginia au-
thorities bearing on the case see:
Magruder We. Board Supervisors Hen
rico county, "a Va, S2S; Cahoon VS.. Iron
Gate, 90 Va. 36S: Fidelity, ETC., Co. vs.
S. V. r. R. Co., Sc Va, L; Lacy vs.. Pal
mer. 93 Va. 159; Ingles s. Strauss, 81
Va, 200 762: Cooley on Constitutional
Limitations and cases cited
Before the judge had finished reading
the decision quite p large crowd had
gathered IN the courtroom, and after the