Case Name: GREEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-06-05
Citations: 148 S.W. 311
Docket Number: 
Parties: GREEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 311–311

Head Matter:
GREEN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 5, 1912.)
Statutes (§ 118 ) — 1Title—Sufficiency.
The pure food law (Acts 32d Leg. c. 47), entitled “An act to prohibit and prevent adul-terative, fraud and deception and misbranding in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and drugs; prescribing penalties for the violation of this act; to provide for the appointment of a dairy and food commissioner, and to define his powers and duties,” etc., is not unconstitutional as to one charged with selling fruit not protected from flies, dust, and dirt, because the offense charged is not contained or disclosed in the caption, but in the body of the act.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 158-160; Dec. Dig. § 118. ]
Appeal from Dallas County Court at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
J. Green was convicted of selling and offering for sale filthy and decomposed fruit, not then protected from flies and dust, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted for selling and offering for sale filthy and decomposed fruit, said fruit not then and there being protected from flies, dust, and dirt, in violation of the provisions of chapter 47 of the Acts of the 32d Legislature.
The uneonstitutionality of this act is again assailed, on the ground that the caption contains more than one subject, and because the matter charged against this defendant is not contained or disclosed in the caption. This question was passed on by this court in the case of E. W. Foche v. State, 144 S. W. 267, adversely to appellant's contention, and cases there cited. For a collation of authorities, see Watts v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 364, 135 S. W. 585. This act has but one object, subject, and purpose, and this is sufficiently stated in the title.
The judgment is affirmed.