|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND. [ART. III
Sec. 27.
This section is not violated by amending a bill as follows: "Amend by
striking out all after the words A Bill and insert in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing." Thrift v. Towers, 127 Md. 58.
Sec...29.
Liquor laws.
The act of 1916, chapter 394, provides for increasing the liquor license
fees in the various localities of the state, and the title, after stating the
position of the act in the code and its primary purpose, provided that the
additional license fees were to be paid to the state treasurer for general
state purposes, whereas the body of the act provides that such fees should
be disposed of as other license fees now provided by law. etc.; the act was
held not invalid under this section. Cases construing this section, and
principles governing such construction, reviewed. Ruehl. v. State, 130
Md. 189.
The act of 191C, chapter 340, providing for the creation by popular vote
of anti-saloon territory in Carroll County, etc., held not to embrace more
than one subject, within the meaning of this section. Title of said act,
held sufficient. Cases under this section reviewed. Grouse v. State, 130
Md. 366; Poisel v. Cash, 130 Md. 374.
Section 9F of chapter 31 of the act of 1916, regulating the sale and
granting of licenses for the sale of liquors in Baltimore County, held ger-
mane to the subject of that act, as set forth in its title. Cases under
this section reviewed. Benesch v. State, 129 Md. 508.
Generally.
The title need not contain an abstract of the bill nor give its provisions
in detail, but it must not be misleading by apparently limiting the enact-
ment to a much narrower scope than the body of the act; nor ought it to
be such as to divert attention from the matter contained in the body of
the act. Purpose of this section. See notes to article 49, section 7 of the
code. State v. King, 124 Md. 497.
In order to comply with this section, though the title need not give an
abstract of the act, yet it must sufficiently describe the subject-matter and
must not be misleading by apparently limiting the enactment to a much
narrower scope than the body of the act embraces. A section which was
attempted to be repealed and re-enacted with amendments by an act
neither the title nor enacting clause of which referred to such section, held
void. Baltimore v. Williams, 124 Md. 510.
The title of the act of 1910, chapter 180, creating the public service com-
mission, held sufficient under this section; purpose and construction of
this section. See notes to article 23, section 414 of the Code. Thrift v.
Laird, 125 Md. 69.
The title of the act of 1912, chapter 32, restricting the liability of Balti-
more City for injuries due to the unsafe condition of the Patapsco River,
is not in violation of this section. Foard Co. v. Maryland, 219 Fed. 828.
The title of Baltimore City ordinance No. 332, approved July 25, 1913,
prescribing certain regulations of the markets in said city, held sufficient
under this section, since it repeals and reordains with amendments, certain
sections of article 23 of the Baltimore City Code. Baltimore v. Wollman,
123 Md. 313.
The act of 1914, chapter 250, authorizing the mayor, etc., of Mount
Ranter to issue bonds and use the proceeds for constructing a sewer and
water system, etc., held invalid, because its title was defective under this
section. Cases reviewed. Weber v. Probey, 125 Md. 549.
Under a title calling for one bill, a different act may not be validly
passed. Thrift v. Towers, 127 Md. 60.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
