Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1910-04-12
STRIKE BREAKERS
RELEASED ON WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
Court Grants Writ But Defendants are I'm
mediately Rearrested on an Amended Com
plant.

AS was expected and as had been
predicted by the majority of the
legal profession of Tonopah, the
petition for writs of habeas corpus,
sought by the five strike breakers
convicted last week of carrying
weapons, were granted yesterday
morning by Judge Averill in the
district court. The decision of the
court was to be rendered at 10
O'Clock and when that time arrived
the court room was comfortably
crowded by parties interested in
the proceedings.
The writs were demanded on the
ground that the defendants had
been convicted of a crime not on
the statutes of this state, namely
with carrying weapons, the word
concealed having been omitted
from the original complaint.
Judge Averill on on rendering
his decision took occasion to re-
mark that the complaints in the
case were absolutely worthless, and
the matter should never have been
brought before him. The parry
who drew the complaints, said the
court, failed utterly in his duty,
and did not even follow out the
statutes. The decision as rendered
is printed in full:
The decision in this proceeding
depends upon two questions; First
what was the intention of the
legislature of 1903 concerning the
wearing, ETC., of weapons?
Second-To what extent is the
body of a statute restricted by its
title, under section II of article "
of the constitution of Nevada?
Answering the first question,
have no doubt that the intention OF
the legislature of 1903 was to pre-.
vent the wearing or carrying, con-
cealed or unconcealed any dangerous
weapon within the limits oil
any town in the state of Nevada
/ think also that the legislature
had the power to pass such an act
and that it would be constitutional
And further that it would not b,
burdensome or oppressive upon {
people accustomed to firearms an
their use. Hunting, target practice
ETC., outside of towns, do not ca,
for the carrying of dangerous wea
pons in towns, for until guns are
loaded they can hardly be classes
as dangerous weapons
The second question, in view o.
the thorough but contradictory al
guments of counsel and the impor
lance of this matter to the com
munity, requires more consideration
because of the effect of section II
of article w, which reads as fol
lows:
Each law enacted by the legis
iautre shall embrace but one sub
jeet and matter properly connected
herewith, which subject shall b.
briefly expressed in the title"
The title of the act under discus
sion is as. follows:
IAN act to prohibit the carrying
of concealed weapons, and to pro
vide for the punishment thereof.
There can be no doubt whateve
that the title refers only to icon
cealed weapons; and that if w
are not permitted to consider any
thing not comprehended by the ii
tile, the offense must not be extend
ed to include the carrying of 9th
er weapons than concealed wea
pons.
The old law on this situation |
given in 1 Kents Commentaries
page 519, tenth edition:
"The title of the act is no part o
it. 1t and the preamble may serv
to show the general scope and pun
port of the act, and may, at times
and in the construction of it; Blu
generally they are loosely and care
lessly drawn and are not safe ez
positors of the law. The true NEAR
ing of the statute is generally an
properly to be sought from the bod
of the act itself. The title FRI
quently alludes only to part {
the multifarious matter of whic
the statute is composed"
But he notes the changing a
titude of the people of his ow
time by saying on the same page:
"The constitution of New Jerse
in 1914 has added and new an
Statutory check to multitudinou
matter by declaring that every la
shall embrace but one object, an
that shall be expressed in the title.
The case of the state of Nevad