affect the revenues of the state, it was held that the title did not express the subject of the act."4 § 162. Curative acts and provisions.-A curative act may apply to any number of instruments or proceedings. One act legalized the proceedings in three separate towns, though taken distinct from each other, to issue bonds in aid of a railroad. By miscarriage of some promoters of them they failed to comply with the law under which they were set on foot, so as not to be efficacious. It was held that the bill contained but one subject.95 The court said it was a local bill, to have effect upon that separate portion of the state. The object of it was to legalize and validate certain doings in that territory, which, although carried on distinct from each other, had a common aim and purpose. So an act to confirm, reduce and levy certain assessments in the city of B. was held to embrace but one subject. 96 As a general rule an act to revise, consolidate or amend a charter, or to revise or amend an act conferring powers, may legalize defective acts and proceedings taken under the act or charter revised or amended.97 An act conferring upon county boards power to make certain contracts may confirm like contracts previously made without authority. An act conferring additional powers upon the town board of Jamaica relative to the public lands in such town authorized the sale and lease of such lands, provided how such sales and leases should be made, and that they should "be subject to existing leases, which leases are hereby rati 94 Richard v. Stark County, 8 N. Ass'n, 96 Va. 119, 30 S. E. 440. D. 392, 79 N. W. 863. 95 Rogers v. Stephens, 86 N. Y. 623. 96 In re Van Antwerp, 1 T. & C. 423. 97 Park v. Modern Woodmen, 181 Ill. 214, 54 N. E. 932; People v. Sutphin, 166 N. Y. 163, 59 N. E. 770; Nottage v. Portland, 35 Ore. 539, 58 Pac. 883, 76 Am. St. Rep. 513; Bosang v. Iron Belt B. & L. Compare Snell v. Chicago, 133 Ill. 98 Beresheim v. Arnd, 117 Iowa, 83, 90 N. W. 506. fied and confirmed." The italics was held not to be within the title.99 § 163. Acts relating to intoxicating liquors. As a means of enforcing a law for regulating and licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, it may provide that a house where such liquors are sold, if kept in a disorderly manner, may be deemed a common nuisance; that so keeping it shall cause a forfeiture of the license, and subject the proprietor to a fine.1 For a like purpose the act may provide that the applicant for a license shall give a bond to the state conditioned, among other things, that he will pay all fines and costs that may be assessed against him for violating the provisions of the act. As a means of enforcing the payment of a special tax on dealers in liquors, it is germane to provide that upon failure to pay such tax the dealer may be indicted and punished for a misdemeanor.3 Where the title indicates the purpose of the act to be to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors, it may include all the various means of enforcing compliance with the act,* may include penalties for violation, confer jurisdiction of suits for such violation and provide for remonstrances against the granting of licenses. Such an act may provide for local option and prohibit sale in localities which vote for prohibition, and such partial prohibition will be deemed regulation within the title of the act. The following provisions have also been held germane and within such a title: that it should be unlawful to permit any minor to remain in the room where liquors are sold, that the dealer should 99 Wenk v. New York, 82 App. Div. 584, 81 N. Y. S. 583. 1 Fletcher v. State, 54 Ind. 462; O'Kane v. State, 69 Ind. 183; State v. Owens, 9 Kan. App. 595, 58 Pac. 240. 2 Kane v. State, 78 Ind. 103. 3 Brown v. State, 73 Ga. 38; Howell v. State, 71 Ga. 224, 51 Am. Rep. 259. 4 Wilson v. Herink, 64 Kan. 607, 68 Pac. 72. 5 State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439, 44 N. E. 469. 6 State v. Forkner, 94 Iowa, 1, 62 N. W. 683; State v. Gloucester Co., 50 N. J. L. 585, 15 Atl. 272. 7 People v. Japinga, 115 Mich. 222, 73 N. W. 111. give bond to comply with the act, and that any person ag grieved by such violation might sue on the bond and recover five hundred dollars liquidated damages for each breach of the condition.8 A provision that part of the revenue derived from licenses should be expended on the public roads was held germane. An act to regulate the sale of liquor may not altogether prohibit the sale. When the title refers to sales only, provisions as to giving away or otherwise disposing of liquor are not included." 10 12 An act to prohibit the sale of liquors, like an act to regulate their sale, may embrace all the provisions necessary for its enforcement, including penalties, and the designation of a tribunal to try violations of the act. It has been held that an act to prohibit the sale may simply regulate the sale; the court holding that "regulating a thing is the prohibition of it, except in accordance with certain rules.”13 An act to prohibit the sale of liquor provided for refunding the money paid on unexpired licenses; held not within the title." An act to license the sale of liquor may impose a penalty for selling without a license. 15 Where the title specified the territory in which it was to operate, and the act specified different territory, it was held void.16 A provision making the operation of the act conditioned on the result of a popu lar vote is germane." Where the title applies to cities only the act may not include towns. 18 An act relating to gam 8 Peavy v. Goss, 90 Tex. 89, 37 S. W. 317. 9 Lynch v. Murphy, 119 Mo. 103, 24 S. W. 774. 10 Crabb v. State, 88 Ga. 584, 15 S. E. 455; Yahn v. Merritt, 117 Ala. 485, 23 So. 71. 11 State v. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 So. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23. 12 McTigue v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 66, 35 S. W. 121; Brown v. Hart, 97 Ky. 735, 31 S. W. 736. 13 Cantini v. Tillman, 54 Fed. 969. 14 Bradley v. State, 99 Ala. 177, 13 So. 415. 15 Burns v. State, 104 Ga. 544, 30 S. E. 815. Contra, Sasser v. State, 99 Ga. 54, 25 S. E. 619. 15 Ryno v. State, 58 N. J. L. 238, 33 Atl. 219. 17 McGruder v. State, 83 Ga. 616, 10 S. E. 441; Whitman v. State, 80 Md. 410, 31 Atl. 325. 18 Jones v. Morristown, 66 N. J. L 488, 49 Atl. 440. bling devices in dramshops provided that the dramshop keeper should not keep, or permit to be kept, in or about his dramshop, any billiard, pool or other gaming table, bowling, or ten-pin alley, cards, dice, or other device for gaming or amusement, and should not "permit any sparring, boxing, wrestling, or other exhibition or contest or cock fight in his dramshop." The whole was held to be within the title. It was held that "device" might mean any contrivance, or anything contrived or planned, and so include the provision quoted.19 164. Pure food laws.-An act entitled "to prevent deception in the sale of dairy products, and to preserve the public health," goes beyond its title in making the manufacture of imitation butter a crime.20 So of an act "to prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and deception in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and drink." 21 An act "to prevent fraud in the sale of lard" forbade the sale of any article intended for use as lard which contained any ingredient other than pure fat of healthy swine, unless it was labeled "compound lard" and showed the ingredients it contained. This was held within the title.22 An act "to provide against the adulteration of food" declared it to be an adulteration "if any inferior or cheaper substance or substances have been substituted in whole or in part for it," or "if it is an imitation of or is sold under the name of another article." These were held within the title.23 19 State v. Blackstone, 115 Mo. nocent and contain no element of 424, 22 S. W. 370. wrong, there must be something in the title to show such purpose or object, under section 20, article 4, of the constitution. The title contains not even an intimation that an entirely innocent act is to be made a crime." p. 223. 20 Northwestern Manuf'g Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 58 Mich. 381, 25 N. W. 372, 55 Am. Rep. 693. See People v. Arensberg. 105 N. Y. 123, 11 N. E. 277, 59 Am. Rep. 483. 21 Grosvenor v. Duffy, 121 Mich. 220, 80 N. W. 19. The court says: “When the legislature attempts to change definitions, and to make acts criminal which are per se in 22 State v. Snow, 81 Iowa. 642, 47 N. W. 777, 11 Am. St. Rep. 355. 23 Commonwealth v. Curry, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 356. § 165. Acts relating to gaming, pool-selling, etc.— Ân act to prevent gaming may make it an offense to keep any house or place for the purpose of betting therein," or give an action to recover back money lost at gaming.25 "An act to prohibit the use of clock, tape, slot or other machines or devices for gambling purposes," may embrace provisions to punish for operating, keeping, owning, renting or using such machines or devices for gambling purposes.26 27 An act to prohibit book-making and pool-selling may be limited in its application to events taking place without the state. The title of an act may be broad enough to include all forms of gambling,28 but when it relates to one form only, such as pool-selling, provisions as to other forms of gambling will be void.29 § 166. Acts relating to fish, game, etc.-An act for the protection of game, wild fowl and birds may include both game and non-game birds in its provisions. "It is to be presumed," says the court, "the general assembly, in framing the title to the act, employed the word 'game' in its proper sense, and therefore as including all game birds, game fowl and all game animals. That being true, it is clear the words 'wild fowl and birds' were added for the reason the word 'game' did not include certain species of wild fowl and birds designed to be protected by the act. The intent which controlled in the addition of these words was, that the title should disclose that birds and fowl which were not game birds or game fowl were objects of the enactment." 30 In Maryland it is held that a provision making it unlawful for one to have in his possession during the closed season birds or game brought from another state is within the title 24 Lescallett v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 878, 17 S. E. 546. 25 Maling v. Crummey, 5 Wash. 222, 31 Pac. 600. 26 Bobel v. People, 173 Ill. 19, 50 N. E. 322, 64 Am. St. Rep. 64. 27 State v. Burgdoerfer, 107 Mo. 1, 17 S. W. 646, 28 Benners v. State, 124 Ala. 97, 26 So. 942. 29 Lacey v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159, 24 S. E. 930, 57 Am. St. Rep. 795. 30 Meul v. People, 198 IIL 258, 260, 64 N. E. 1106. |