« PrejšnjaNaprej »
pressed in its title. The storage of debris from “mining and other operations” seems to be the paramount object of the act, to promote drainage the subordinate. Formerly this provision was construed to be directory. [Washington v. Page, 4 Cal. 388.] It is now mandatory. [Sec. 22, Art. I, Const.] The act is also local by reason of the provision iri section 24 thereof, requiring all money raised under the act to be applied to the construction of dams for impounding debris from the mines specified and rectification of certain river channels. [Sec. 25, Art. IV, Const.) It is further unconstitutional as containing a delegation of power. [Art. III and Sec. 12, Art. XI, Const.) People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624, see concurring and dissenting opinions. Doane v. Weil, Id. 334, decided on authority of People v. Parks, supra.
The act of April 6, 1880 (Stats. p. 313], for the refunding of county indebtedness, although it adds five new sections to the Political Code, is an independent statute, and is in no way unconstitutional University of Cal. v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 612.
Construing the object of the act of April 16, 1880 [Stats. p. 385], entitled "an act providing for appeals from orders forming reclamation or swamp land districts,” etc., to be to provide for original and not appellate proceedings, it may be admitted (though not decided) that the title which states the object of the act to be to provide for appeals, correctly expresses the object found by construction in the body
of the act, not io be to provide for appeals. Bixler's Appeal, 59 Cal. 550.
As to any subject embraced in the act and not expressed in its title, the act is void. Wood r. Election Commissioners, 58 Cal. 561, 565.
The act of April 2, 1880 [Stats. p. 105]. commonly known as the "Traylor Act," is not a re-enactment of section 1617, as amended, of Political Code, and is not an amendment of the said code, and its subject is not expressed in its title. Earle v. Board of Education, 5.) Cal. 489.
The provision of the former constitution that a law should embrace but one object which should be expressed in its title, was merely directory. (Washington v. Page, 4 Cal. 388; Pierpont v. Crouch, 10 Id. 315.] San Francisco v. S. V. W. W., 54 Cal. 571.
The prohibition against local or special laws only applies to prospective legislation. The act of March 25, 1874 [Stats. p. 614], defining powers and duties of the state board of education of Nevada school district was valid when enacted, although section 159 Political Code, provided that the number of school trustees "except where city boards are otherwise authorized by law, shall be three.' The constitution of 1849 did not prohibit local or special legislation. [Meade v. Watson, 67 Cal. 591; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6.] Nevada School Dist. v. Shoecraft, 88 Cal. 372.
Section 300 of Penal Code, as adopted in 1872, (Sunday law) was not a special law,
was it otherwise unconstitutional. Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6.
The legislature has the power to determine the number of justices of the peace to be elected in incorporated cities. [Article VI, section 11.] There is no limitation of this power in article XI, nor section 25, article IV. Bishop v. City of Oakland, 58 Cal. 572.
The act of April 16, 1880 [Stats. p. 313], for the funding of county indebtedness is a general law and is not special legislation. Statutes should not be declared unconstitutional unless there is a clear repugnance between the act and the constitution. University of Cal. v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 612.
When a section of the code is "amended to read as follows,” and the amended section is published at length, without any saving clause continuing the original section in force for any purpose or to any extent, the effect is to repeal the original section, and it ceases to have any statutory force. Huffman 1. Hall, 102 Cal. 31.
In the absence of such a constitutional provision as this, a section of an act might have been amended in one of four ways, without disturbing the force of the words not stricken out but the objection to such mode is that it tends to confusion and uncertainty, and this provision of the constitution was intended to prevent such uncertainty confusion. Fletcher r. Prather, 102 Cal. 418.
The statute providing that the warrant, assessment and diagram prepared in matter of
street improvements shall be prima facie evidence of the regularity and correctness of the assessment, in an action to recover for the assessment is not unconstitutional, and such evidence will support a judgment where defendant offers no evidence. Dowling v. Conniff, 103 Cal. 78.
The title of the act of April 1, 1878 [Stats. pp. 969, 986], "to create the office of commissioner of transportation" etc., sufficiently expresses the scope and subject of the act. Gieseke 1. County of San Joaquin, 109 Cal. 490.
The act of March 23, 1893 [Stats. p. 288], providing for sale of franchises in municipalities "and relative to granting franchises," expresses sufficient in its title to embrace the issuance and sale of franchises by counties. Thompson v. Board of Supervisors, Alameda Co., 111 Cal. 554.
The provision requiring legislative bills to embrace but one subject, which subject shall be expressed in its title," was not intended to, and does not apply to municipal ordinances. Ex parte Haskell, 112 Cal. 415-421.
It is not intended that the title of an act should disclose all the details of the act; it is sufficient if it intelligibly refers to the subject to which the act applies, or which is affected by it. Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136.
The act of March 17, 1891 [Stats. p. 116), purpurting to amend the so called Vrooman act, by adding other sections thereto, was not in fact an amendment of the former act, or
SIXTH. Changing the names of persons or places.
SEVENTH. Authorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or vacating roads, highways, streets, alleys, town plats, parks, cemeteries, graveyards, or public grounds not owned by the EIGHTH. Summoning and impanneling grand
and petit juries, and providing for their compen
at most, only amended the former act by implication, and it cannot be held that amendments by implication are within the constitutional requirement of section 24, article IV. Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 139-149.
The act of March 28, 1895, [Stats. p. 267] to establish the fees of county, township and other officers, and of jurors and witness, so far as effects the provision requiring that at the time of filing the inventory in probate cases an additional fee shall be demanded in estates for each one thousand dollars in excess of three thousand dollars, is unconstitutional as not being germane to the object expressed in the title of the act. Fatjo v. Pfister, 117. Cal. 86. SECTION 25. The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say:
FIRST. Regulating the jurisdiction and duties of justices of the peace, police judges and of constaSECOND. For the punishment of crimes and misTHIRD. Regulating the practice of courts of FOURTH. Providing for changing the venue in civil or criminal actions. FIFTH. Granting divorces.