State v. Land

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Land

59 So. 1007, 131 La. 611, 1912 La. LEXIS 1157

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 18, 1912

DocketNo. 19,635

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 59 So. 1007 (State v. Land) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Land, 59 So. 1007, 131 La. 611, 1912 La. LEXIS 1157 (La. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

MONROE, J.

Defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence under Act 84 of 1908, and presents his case on bills of exception to the overruling of motions to quash the indictment and in arrest of judgment, said motions having been based on the ground that the object of the act in question is not expressed in its title, as required by article 31 of the Constitution. The title reads:

“An act to amend and re-enact Act No. 115, of 1896, entitled ‘An act making it a felony for any person over the age of 18 years to have carnal knowledge of any unmarried female between the ages of 12 and 16 years, with her consent, and fixing the penalty therefor.’ ”

Act 115 of 1896 provides as the title indicates, and Act 84 of 1908 amends and reenacts it, thereby making it a felony for any person over the age of 17 years to have carnal knowledge of any unmarried, female between the ages of 12 and 18 years with her consent. The object expressed in the title (of the act of 1908) is to amend and re-enact an existing statute, the title of which is recited, and declares its object to be to deal with the subject of carnal knowledge between persons of certain ages, with the consent of the unmarried female in the case, and the text accomplishes that object by applying the penalty to persons of ages slightly different from those to whom the amend[613]*613ed act applied it, a detail which it was unnecessary to state in the title.

This court has gone further, and held that the title of an act which states the object to be to amend and re-enact a section of the Revised Statutes, only the number of which is given, expresses its object within constitutional requirements. State ex rel. Farrar v. Garrett, 29 La. Ann. 637; State ex rel. Rills v. Barrow, 30 La. Ann. 657; State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771, 6 South. 638; State ex rel. Mouton et al. v. Judge, 49 La. Ann. 1535, 22 South. 761; State v. Bazile, 50 La. Ann. 21, 23 South. 8; State v. Cognevich, 124 La. 420, 50 South. 439.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MONROE, J.

Defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence under Act 84 of 1908, and presents his case on bills of exception to the overruling of motions to quash the indictment and in arrest of judgment, said motions having been based on the ground that the object of the act in question is not expressed in its title, as required by article 31 of the Constitution. The title reads:

“An act to amend and re-enact Act No. 115, of 1896, entitled ‘An act making it a felony for any person over the age of 18 years to have carnal knowledge of any unmarried female between the ages of 12 and 16 years, with her consent, and fixing the penalty therefor.’ ”

Act 115 of 1896 provides as the title indicates, and Act 84 of 1908 amends and reenacts it, thereby making it a felony for any person over the age of 17 years to have carnal knowledge of any unmarried, female between the ages of 12 and 18 years with her consent. The object expressed in the title (of the act of 1908) is to amend and re-enact an existing statute, the title of which is recited, and declares its object to be to deal with the subject of carnal knowledge between persons of certain ages, with the consent of the unmarried female in the case, and the text accomplishes that object by applying the penalty to persons of ages slightly different from those to whom the amend[613]*613ed act applied it, a detail which it was unnecessary to state in the title.

This court has gone further, and held that the title of an act which states the object to be to amend and re-enact a section of the Revised Statutes, only the number of which is given, expresses its object within constitutional requirements. State ex rel. Farrar v. Garrett, 29 La. Ann. 637; State ex rel. Rills v. Barrow, 30 La. Ann. 657; State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771, 6 South. 638; State ex rel. Mouton et al. v. Judge, 49 La. Ann. 1535, 22 South. 761; State v. Bazile, 50 La. Ann. 21, 23 South. 8; State v. Cognevich, 124 La. 420, 50 South. 439.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 So. 1007, 131 La. 611, 1912 La. LEXIS 1157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-land-la-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack