The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1909-07-30
BULLOCK MAKES AN I'M
PoRTANT DECISION

Judge w. S. Bullock made a decis-
IN chambers yesterday, which will
save the various counties of the state
many hundreds of dollars.
The case was one in which Davis
White was suing Lake county for the
usual fifty dollars paid for testimony
upon which convictions are secured
against blind tiger" operators, under
an act of the legislature of 1907.
Attorney George w. schofeld Of In
verness represented White, while
Lake county was represented by
Judge ]. B. Gaines of Leesburg.
Judge Bullock, after hearing the ar
guments of the attorneys, decided the
law under which these amounts have
been paid as unconstitutional. and
handed down the following decision:
In the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court,
Lake County, Florida.
Dave White VS.. Lake County
This cause came On to be heard on
argument of demurrer to the amend
ed declaration.
Section 16, Article , of the consti
tuition of the state of Florida requires
that leach law enacted in the legis-
lature shall embrace but one subject
and matter properly connected there
with, which subject shall be briefly
expressed in the title"
Section 1856 of the general stat
utes has no suggestion Of a reward to
be paid to informants or persons fur
nishing testimony. This feature for
the first time is found in chapter
$500, laws of Florida, amending sec
ton 1856 of the general statutes.
The title of chapter $500 does not
contain any word or sentence that
would give the least information that
the act contained any provision for
the payment of a reward to persons
furnishing the testimony upon which
a conviction could be had, nor does
it contain any suggestion that the
county would be required to pay for
testimony secured by persons in. case
the defendant was insOlvent, upon
which a conviction was had, in those
cases where the reward cannot be
collected from the person or persons
who may be convicted under the pro
visions" of the said act. Reading this
title no legislator would be put on no
tice that the "act relative to the sale
of liquors in counties or peroincts vot-
ing against such sale" contained any
provision for the county paying a re-
ward to persons furnishing the testi'
mony. There is nothing briefly eX
pressed in the title" that would lead
to such suggestion, or upon which
such legislation could be founded.
Whether it treats of two separate
and distinct subject matters, in that
it treats of the sale of liquors in cOun
ties or precincts voting against such
sale, and also treats of the violation
of the revenue statute so as to affect
its constitutionality, we need not now
decide. There are many other points
in the demurrer not necessary to de
eide. as I think the act Unconstitution
al, as above set out.
1t might be void for uncertainty
also. Who is to determine "the per
son or persons furnishing the test
mony?"
No provision for the court deter
mining il. Are the witnesses who are
subpoenaed by the state and go be
fore the grand jury under compulsory
process. entitled &c il? Are those who
testify before the petit jury entitled
10 it? If several testify, which o.
these are to be paid the reward
more than one how is it divided?. i
the man who has located the tiger!
lair" and put the officers into posses
sion of the information that secures
their conviction entitled to it? Car
the county commissioners sit on the
question and pass on it? Would thai
not be a judicial matter being deter
mined by them? Especially when sew
eral claim the reward, as is often the
case.
II is considered and ordered thai
the demurrer be and the same is sus
| tanned. .ooo
Done at Ocala, Fla, July 27th, 19O9
nCK TndOp