The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-07-07
co0IFIERS DO NOT MAKE LAW.
..,,ssroN OF a LAW FROM THE
CONF DOES NOT REPEAL 1T.

I'D. ~ VI. NorvvoOd's Able Decision
tbe Reed TOney Case-shOws
mint the Adoption of the Code
-. Not Make, Repeal or Amend
,.,,s-ConstitutiOn Principles
,,,.icb stand in the Wny-Supreme
,rt Decided One Feature of the
$500. Aftcr His Decision was Rem
,.r.d-This Case to Go to the su-
uremc Court.
I.4-. Thomas NJ. Norwood of the City
c,,rt has just handed down an import
-. 5s,,-fon bearing upon the legal char
.r of the code of Georgia, which will
r,ofintsrest to lawyers here and in other
narts OF the state.
r5o supreme Court now has before 1T
-...+toos similar to that contained In this
5s..soa of Judge Norwood's, and in fact
has already rendered an opinion upon one
.,ict in the case, different from that
-, was given by Judge Norwood. The
c,,r5n17 Court, however, has not passed
,,non FMS particular case, and Judge Nor
~,,5.s decision was rendered before the
elrsrne Court passed on the subject.
The case was that of Reed Toney
AGAINST the Savannah, Florida and West
ern Railroad, damages for personal inju-
riss Toney was injured in Ware county,
ms home. however, is in Chatham county,
and he brought suit in the City Court of
savannah. Under the act of Dec. 20, 1892,
!, is required that suit must be brought
IN tbe county where the injury occurs, and
then the law as passed at that time con-
times provided that said suit may be
brought in the county where the principal
office of said railroad company is located,
u the plaintiff should reside in said
county
When the suit came up for trial it was
teld by the attorneys for the defense that
under the law this suit would have to be
brought in Ware county. It was shown
that the proviso with reference to the
residence of the plaintiff as above quoted,
was omitted from the code of 1885, and it
was claimed therefore, that when the
legislature adopted that code the proviso
was thereby repealed, so that it was no
longer part of the law of the state.
Counsel LOT the Dldllllll COuNGittGQ That
although the pTovlso had not been put in
The code it was a law of the state just
as much as the laws which were found
in the code The failure to cOdify it old
not repeal it, it was urged, and Judge
Norwood in an able opinion sustained that
view of the case.
Judge Norwood took up the history of
the code and showed how it was brought
about He showed clearly how the adop-
~ he, narie- Ia frrr
not legally create any new laws, repeal
any Old ones nor amend any of those in
existence There are several constltu-
tional requirements in connection with the
passage of laws by the legislature, the
result Of years of careful study on the
part of legislators, and in passing laws
the general assembly must conform 70
those constitutional provisions. In the
first place the title of any bill introduced
in the legislature must indicate what is
the subject matter of the bill, and must
not differ from it in any way. In The
second place no bill or resolution in the
legislature can contain more than enc
subject matter; if it does 1t is unconsu-
tuuonal. In the third place every bill
before IL becomes a law has to be read
three times in each house of the general
assembly.
In the case of the CODE not one of these
Constitutional requirements was complied
with; therefore, the adoption of the code
does not create, repeal or amend any
laws Ii is merely the adoption as a legal
standard of a codifed form of the laws
Of the stale.
Judge NorWoOd's reasoning may be read
lily understood from the foregoing. He
decides among other things, that the
omission of a law or any part of law
from the code does not repeal that law or
part of law. Nor does the insertion in
the code of any statement that has not
previously been enacted into law, make
that statement law. For if it did the
codlhers might put in a provision against
riding bicycles on the street on Sunday
and subject citizens to great inconVen-
lence or something of that sort. Such
an inserted provision would not be law,
ana would be of no effect.
The Supreme Court has rendered a de-
c'sIon to the effect practically that omit
ted portions of laws, such as the forego-
Ing proYisO, are not laws, but stlll has
under consideration the question as to
"netner the adoption of the code makes
everything in 1t law, whether put there
by mistake or not The one it would
SEEN naturally follows from the other.
ms case viii go to the Supreme Court,
ana IL VIII necesSitate the reviewing of the
SUBJECT matter again. With an able de-
ClSon like this before the court, the mat
~. VIII undoubtedly be given profound