Case Name: STATE v. BOYLSTON
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1915-03-22
Citations: 138 La. 21
Docket Number: No. 21161
Parties: STATE v. BOYLSTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 21–31

Head Matter:
(69 South. 860)
No. 21161.
STATE v. BOYLSTON.
(March 22, 1915.
On Rehearing, Nov. 2, 1915.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Statutes &wkey;>118 — Title and Subject-Matter — Embezzlement.
Paragraph 7 of section 1 of Act No. 189 of 1902, relating to misappropriation of money by clerks or officers of state banks, is unconstitutional, because not covered by the title of the act.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Gent. Dig. §§ 158-160; Dec. Dig. &wkey;118.]
2. Statutes <&wkey;168 — Effect of Invalidity-Misappropriation of Money of State Banks.
The unconstitutionality of the act in this respect reinstates sections 905 and 907 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, relating to embezzlement and breach of trust.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Gent. Dig. § 244; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>168.]
O’Niell, J., dissenting.
On Rehearing.
3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1015 — Appeal — Dismissal — Ground .
Where three criminal charges, similar in character, against the same defendant, bearing the same caption, with different numbers on the docket of the trial court, but involving the same questions of law, are argued together, and the trial judge hands down an opinion and decree, bearing the caption common to the three cases, with the docket number of each, which is intended and accepted as quashing the indictment in each case, and the motion and order of appeal bear a similar caption and numbers, the defendant has no standing to dismiss the appeals, or either of them, on the ground that there is no appeal, or but one, since he does not, and cannot well deny the application to each of the eases of the opinion and decree as rendered by the judge and entered upon the minutes by the clerk, and the state has appealed, as it had the right to do, from the decree as so rendered and entered. Moreover, if there be any irregularity in the appeal, resulting from the situation, as thus brought about, the consequences are not to be visited upon the appellant.
There was, however, no greater irregularity in deciding and appealing the eases, as was done (a separate transcript having been brought up in each case) than there was in arguing_ them together, since the convenience of the litigants was equally subserved, and the cases no more lost their respective identities for the one purpose than for the other.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. <&wkey;1015.]
4. Statutes <&wkey;138, 141 — Amendment—Reference to Title.
A statute, or section of a statute, may be revised or amended by reference to its title, but in such case it must be re-enacted and published at length. An amendment, by reference to the title of the amended statute, must, however, in any ease, be germane to the matter amended, and it is no answer to the objection that it is not so to say that matter to which the amendment would have been germane might originally have been included in the amended statute under the title borne by it.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Gent. Dig. §§ 48, 198, 205, 206, 209; Dec. Dig. &wkey;138, 141.]
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; T. F. Bell, Judge.
W. H. Boylston was indicted for embezzle ment, a motion to quash the indictment was sustained and the State appeals.
Reversed.
R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and Wm. A. Mabry, Dist. Atty., and S. I. Poster, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State. J. C. Pugh & Son and Alexander & Wilkinson, all of Shreveport, for appellee.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
The defendant was indicted for embezzling, for the use of one J. R. Brown, the money of a certain state branch bank, contrary to paragraph 7 of section 1 of Act 189 of 1902.
Defendant first moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it set forth no crime or offense known to the laws of the state of Louisiana.
Defendant then, without abandoning said motion, moved to quash the indictment on the further ground that Act 189 of 1902, particularly the seventh paragraph, is unconstitutional and void, for the reason that said act does not express the object in its title, as required by the Constitution, of the state, and, if it does, which -is denied, that the said act has two separate and distinct objects, likewise in violation of article 31 of the Constitution of this state.
This motion was sustained by the trial judge, and the accused was ordered to be discharged, and the state has appealed.
The judge a quo, in a well-considered opinion assigned his reasons for holding paragraph 7 of section 1 of Act 189 of 1902 to be unconstitutional.
The original act of March 15, 1855 (Acts 1855, No. 166) is entitled "An act to establish a general system of free banking in the state of Louisiana." Act 150 of 1888 is entitled "An act to amend and re-enact section 3 of act of March 15, 1855."
Act No. 95 of 1892 is entitled "An act to amend and re-enact Act No. 150 of the session of 1888." And Act No. 189 of 1902 is entitled "An act to amend and re-enact Act No. 95 of the session of 1892," amending and re-enacting Act No. 150 of 188S, amending and re-enacting section 3 of act of March 15, 1855 entitled, etc.
Act No. 166, approved March 15, 1855, is entitled "An act to establish a general system of free banking in the state of Louisiana," and contains 41 sections.
Section 3 relates exclusively to the powers of banking corporations to be formed and organized under the provisions of the act. There is no section of this long statute which provides a penalty for the embezzlement of the money or funds of banking corporations. The penalties imposed relate solely to violation of banking rules. Embezzlement and breach of trust in general was denounced in section 81 of Act No. 120 of 1855, entitled "An act relative to crimes and offenses," and embezzlement of money belonging to banks or deposited therein was specially penalized by section 83 of the same act.
These two sections were incorporated in the Revised Statutes of 1870, and there appear as sections 905 and 907.
The titles of the amendatory acts of 1888, 1892, and 1902 limit their scope to the amendment of section 3 of Act 166 of 1855, relating exclusively to the powers of banking corporations, and give no notice whatever of a purpose. to add a penal section to that statute, or to amend sections 905 and 907 of the Revised Statutes of 1870. Hence Act 189 of 1902 is a plain violation of article 31 of the Constitution of 1898.
'Conceding the unconstitutionality of paragraph 7 of section 1 of Act 189 of 1902, sections 905 and 907, Rev. St. 1870, would remain as the existing legislation on the same subject-matter. State v. Dalcourt, 112 La. 423, 428, 36 South. 479; City of Shreveport v. Kahn, 136 La. 371, 67 South. 38. Hence the case should be remanded for a re trial of the first motion to quash and for further proceedings according to law.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment below he affirmed as to the unconstitutionality of paragraph 7 of section 1 of Act No. 189 of 1902, but otherwise be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings according to law.
See dissenting opinion of O'NIELL, J., 69 South. 861.